Which statement best describes compensability of injuries arising out of or in the course of employment when negligence does not matter?

Which statement best describes compensability of injuries arising out of or in the course of employment when negligence does not matter?

• A. Not compensable without regard to negligence
• B. Arising out of or in the course of employment
• C. Only if the injury occurs on the premises
• D. Requires fault to be proven

Answer: (B)

The key idea is no‑fault workers’ compensation: you get benefits for injuries that are connected to your job, regardless of who was at fault. An injury is compensable when it arises out of the employment and occurs in the course of the employment. “Arising out of” means the injury is caused by something related to your work, and “in the course of” means it happens while you’re performing duties or within the time and place connected to work. Because negligence doesn’t matter, you don’t have to prove fault to receive benefits. The other statements don’t fit because they imply fault is needed, limit coverage to injuries on the premises, or deny compensation simply based on negligence, which isn’t how workers’ compensation works.

The key idea is no‑fault workers’ compensation: you get benefits for injuries that are connected to your job, regardless of who was at fault. An injury is compensable when it arises out of the employment and occurs in the course of the employment. “Arising out of” means the injury is caused by something related to your work, and “in the course of” means it happens while you’re performing duties or within the time and place connected to work. Because negligence doesn’t matter, you don’t have to prove fault to receive benefits.

The other statements don’t fit because they imply fault is needed, limit coverage to injuries on the premises, or deny compensation simply based on negligence, which isn’t how workers’ compensation works.