Workers’ Compensation · Primary-source case analysis

O’Leary: A Reasonable Rescue Attempt Fell Within the Employment Zone of Special Danger

By Aneeta Mishra and Timothy Chan

Published August 17, 2026

O’Leary v. Brown-Pacific-Maxon involved a Guam construction worker who entered a dangerous channel to aid stranded men while waiting for employer transportation from a company recreation center.

The employer maintained the remote recreation area

Brown-Pacific operated a shoreline center for workers and provided transportation. John Valak was waiting for the company bus after using the facility when he saw people signaling for help beyond a hazardous channel.

The rescue occurred outside ordinary work duties

Valak was not assigned to rescue the men, the waters were posted against swimming, and the people in distress were not shown to be coworkers. Even so, workers’ compensation coverage was not confined to common-law scope-of-employment rules.

Employment created a zone of special danger

The overseas work conditions and employer-sponsored setting placed Valak where the rescue impulse arose. The deputy commissioner could reasonably attribute the death to risks associated with the employment environment.

The award was restored under substantial-evidence review

The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit and upheld the dependent mother’s death award. The decision supports coverage where the employment relationship creates the special danger, not every injury occurring during off-duty life abroad.

Key takeaways

• Map the remote assignment, employer facilities, transportation, and injury location.
• Explain how the rescue or off-duty activity arose from the employment-created environment.
• Preserve eyewitness, safety-warning, and employer-sponsorship evidence.
• Distinguish a special employment danger from a purely personal risk.