Charlie Anderson v. Country Sun Farms & Greenhouses, No. WC25-6613 (W.C.C.A. March 25, 2026).
In this case heard by the Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals, two issues were before the Court. First, whether an employment relationship existed versus a casual employment as defined by Minn. Stat. § 176.041, subd. 1. And, whether the injury arose in the course and scope of employment.
The Employer, Country Sun Farms, operates a retail business, farm and greenhouses. They sell flowers, pumpkins, and Christmas trees along with other holiday items. They also host seasonal events. The business is family owned and employs multiple family members, including the son of the owners. The son owned property adjacent to the Employer’s property.
In March of 2022, the son hired his daughter’s then boyfriend, Mr. Anderson (Anderson) to work in the greenhouse at $12.00/hour. No personnel or payroll records were kept regarding Anderson, and Anderson often helped various family members with personal projects and worked for the business with and without pay.
On July 21, 2022, Anderson reached out to the son to see if he needed any help. Anderson was under the impression the son was one of the owners of the business. The son told Anderson that they needed to clean up the firewood in the employer’s parking lot.
The following day, the son, Anderson, and another co-worker stacked hay and asphalt on the son’s property. Anderson understood this work was personal to the son and not related to the business. After they finished on the son’s property, they went over to the Employer’s parking lot to clear a tree that had been cut down on behalf of Xcel Energy. The owner had offered the wood of the downed tree to his son. The son, Anderson, and the co-worker began working to remove the logs. Anderson was distracted by a chicken running across the lot, and crushed his hand in the splitter, breaking three fingers and requiring surgery. He was unable to work again until October 2022. He worked until October 31, 2022, the end of the fall season, and was going to work the Christmas tree season, but the Employer sold out of trees early.
Seeking wage loss and medical benefits, Anderson filed a claim petition, on November 28, 2023. The Employer denied Anderson was an employee, and alleged he was engaging in casual employment, and further alleged the injury did not occur in the course and scope of employment. The judge found that Anderson was an employee on July 22, 2022, and sustained a personal injury to his right hand arising out of and in the course and scope of his employment.
The employer and insurer appealed. On appeal, the Court had to determine if the findings of fact and order were clearly erroneous and unsupported by substantial evidence in view of the entire record. (Minn. Stat. § 176.421, subd, 1(3) When a decision rests on the application of a statute or rule to undisputed facts, the Court considers the ruling de novo.
Regarding the employment relationship, while the the Court pointed out when there is not a conflict of facts, the question of whether an employment relationship exists becomes a question of law. In this case, there did not seem to be a dispute of facts so the Court review was de novo.
The Court noted two necessary elements to the casual employment exception: first, it must be casual, or without regularity, occasional & incidental, temporary and of short duration. Second, it was not be in the usual course of the trade, business, profession, or occupation of the employer. The Court was not convinced the removing of logs from the employer’s parking lot was not in the usual course of business of the employer. The Court pointed to a Minnesota Supreme Court decision in O’Rourke v. Percy Vittum Co., 166 Minn. 251, 207 N.W. 636 (1926), where the court determined that “an employer may enlarge or extend the scope of the employment, and an employee who, at the direction of his employer or of a superior to whose orders he is subject performs services outside the duties of his usual employment, and performs them in consequence of the existence of the relation of employer and employee and as incidental to the employment, is within the protection of the act while performing such services.” The Court determined Anderson “was performing the task of splitting the logs on the employer’s property in furtherance of the employer’s interests under the direction and control of the person who had hired him to work for the employer. When an employee performs services undertaken in good faith to advance the interests of the employer-employee relationship and is injured incidental to such services, the employee is within the protection of the WCA.”
Regarding the “In the course of” argument by the employer and insurer, even though there was some evidence supporting the view that the work on July 22, 2022, was outside Anderson’s regular schedule and duties, the judge found the preponderance of the evidence supported that Anderson was engaged in work activity on the employer’s property at the instruction of the employer within his employment. Since substantial evidence existed to support the judge’s ruling, the Court affirmed the judge’s decision.
Takeaway: Under Minnesota law, in order for an alleged employee to fall under the casual work exemption, the work in question must meet two elements. First, the work must for without regularity, occasional & incidental, temporary and of short duration. In addition, the work must be out of the usual course of trade, business, profession, or occupation of the employer. When determining the second element one must consider if the employee enlarged the scope of employment and if the work was performed as a consequence of the employer/employee relationship and incidental to the employment.