Legal Memorandum: Workers' Compensation and Coexistent Employment in AZ, ME, OH

Issue: What workers’ compensation cases exist nationwide involving coexistent or coexisting employment?

Phoenix v. Indus. Comm. of Arizona, 742 P.2d 825 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987) (While we recognized the benefit to Sixpence of the officer’s security guard function in stopping and questioning the subject, we find that this was separate and distinct from his obligations as a City of Phoenix police officer and that these roles were not co-existent.”)

Cooper v. City of Dayton, 696 N.E.2d 640 (Ohio Ct. App. 1997) (quoting Phoenix v. Indus. Comm. of Arizona).

Juan’s Case, 126 A. 571 (Me. 1924) (“As the idea of liability without regard to fault, as a matter of right, where his own self will was not the proximate cause of the employee’s injury, is the underlying conception of the whole act, so that of an indemnity proportioned with regard to the fair average of the diminution in wage earning power, in which respect the wages from more than one employment, when the contracts of employment were coexistent, count as though earned in a single employment within the limit of a full working day, spreads through every part of the subclause.”).

[…]