Posts Tagged ‘operating premises’

News roundup: Cavalcade of Risk, comments, lunch breaks, and quick takes

Thursday, June 22nd, 2006

Risk roundup – The second issue of Cavalcade of Risk is posted over at It’s Just Money. LA Money Guy is the host, and he’s assembled an eclectic array of posts ranging from drug caps to hurricane insurance. Check it out!
Comments – Our apologies if you’ve ever left a comment that didn’t get published here. When emptying several thousand spams from our spam trap this past weekend, we were dismayed to find about a dozen legitimate comments from you, our readers, that had been automatically routed to the spam file. Part of the reason we re-designed the site a few months ago was to incorporate a better comment filter – we get hundreds of trash comments each week, some quite vile. We thought things were working out quite nicely, but realize now that it’s been a little more aggressive than we intended. Our sincere apologies – we look forward to and appreciate your comments! We rescued about a dozen comments and rightfully restored them to the posts where they belong. We made further adjustments to the filter and hope that will do it, but we’ll be checking more carefully going forward so that we don’t lose any of your comments.
Lunch breaks – Are your employees covered by workers compensation when they are out of the office on a lunch break? Yes, according to a new ruling by the Maine Supreme Court as reported by Mark Hoffman in Business Insurance. In this case, the employee slipped on icy steps as she entered the building. The insurer contested the case on the basis of the going and coming rule, which holds that employees aren’t usually covered on their routes to and from work. However, courts often award compensation to workers who are injured in company parking lots or other areas in or around the workplace. (See our prior post on Exception to the “going and coming” rule: operating premises.) In this case, there was an additional twist: the employer was renting the office, and part of the rental contract stipulated that the landlord would keep the walkways clear of ice. Regardless, the employee’s injury would still be compensable. If the employer or insurer would like to try to recoup the costs from the third party through subrogation, that’s another matter. (Read the full court decision: Robyn D. Fournier v. Aetna, Inc., et al.)
Meatpacking hell – Confined Space brings our attention to a recent series by Bob Herbert in the New York Times reporting on the brutal and dangerous working conditions at Smithfield Packing Company in Tar Heel, North Carolina. Because these are subscription only articles, we’ll link to Jordan’s two posts: Where the workers come last and Walking Into The Pit Of Hell. (See also: Blood, Sweat, and Fear: Workers Rights in U.S. Meat and Poultry Plants). Now the workers are taking their case for safety and basic worker rights the public.
Medical blogs – If you enjoy learning about emerging medical technologies, then Medgadget is the blog for you. There’s always some fascinating matter to be found. And for another interesting blog by a medical professional, check out the always fresh Emergiblog, a blog we found when Kim, a nurse who runs the blog, left a comment in one of our posts. Today, she kicks off the first edition of Change of Shift, a nursing blog carnival.
Quick takes

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted in News roundups | Comments Off on News roundup: Cavalcade of Risk, comments, lunch breaks, and quick takes

Exception to the “going and coming” rule: operating premises

Monday, July 18th, 2005

I was catching up on back issues of Business Insurance this past weekend and came across an interesting recent decision by the Supreme Court of Kentucky involving the going and coming rule.
By way of introduction, the going and coming rule has to do with employees traveling to and from work. Generally, any injuries that an employee would suffer while traveling to and from work would not be compensable. There are several exceptions to this rule and the case of Warrior Coal Company LLC v. Stoud (pdf) offers an illustration of one such exception.
This case dealt with a worker who was driving his own vehicle to work and who turned onto a private access road leading to Cardinal Mines. This road was owned by his employer, used exclusively by the company, and was part of the company’s operating premises. While driving on the access road, the worker fell asleep, drove off the road, and hit a tree, sustaining a neck injury. The employee filed a claim for benefits, which his employer denied, stating that the employee’s injuries were not caused by employment and that “falling asleep was a substantial deviation from the employment.” However, an Administrative Law Judge determined that the worker was indeed eligible for benefits and this decision was upheld by the Court of Appeals. The employer subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court of Kentucky, where the prior decision for compensability was upheld.
In finding for the employee, the court noted the exception to the going and coming rule when an injury occurs on an employer’s operating premises:
“The theory for the exception is that coverage should apply when an injury arises from a peril that is related to the employment, regardless of whether it occurs at the actual worksite. Consistent with the theory, an injury that occurs while the worker is on a personal mission that substantially deviates from the employment is not viewed as being work-related even if it occurs on the employer’s operating premises … But an injury is compensable if the worker is engaged in normal coming and going activity at the time it occurs and has access to the place where it occurs because of his employment.
In this case, the court did not see falling asleep as a sufficient deviation from employment.
Other common exceptions to going and coming rule
Workers comp has many gray areas and every state has different laws. Even when states have similar laws, courts can interpret them very differently. The following are common exceptions to the going and coming rule, but you should check with the law in your state.

  • Salespersons, visiting nurses, and other workers who spend a great deal of their time on the road or on call. Because travel is an integral function of the job for these employees, and because they do not operate from a fixed locale, they are often exempt from the going and coming rule.
  • Supplied transportation. When an employer supplies a vehicle or pays for transportation, any injuries tht occur are often found to be compensable.
  • Business travel away from home. Courts are generally liberal in determining compensability for accidents occurring during business travel away from home. Injuries that occur during recreational pursuits or other activities may be deemed compensable while traveling away from home, even if these activities would not be deemed work-related at home.
  • Driving in a “zone of danger” or an area of special hazards. Such a situation might occur if an employee has to drive through a particularly dangerous area, such as a blasting zone or construction site, to get to work.
  • Dual purpose. An example of this would be an employee who is driving home from work and performing an errand for the employer on the way. If the employer is deriving benefit from the employee’s actions, any injuries that occur may be compensable.

More information:
Compensability: Driving “To and From”
Compensability: Deviation From Employment and “Personal Comfort” Doctrine
Extreme Commuting: Not Exactly the Sporting Life
Course and Scope: A Case of Flag Waving
Where the Rubber Meets the Road: Risk Management for Employees Who Drive

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Compensability | Comments Off on Exception to the “going and coming” rule: operating premises