Court of Appeals Decides Going and Coming Case - Denies Benefits to Claimant

In Seaman v. Burgess Health Center, No. 14-1385 (Iowa App. Oct. 14, 2015), the Court of Appeals addressed the application of the going and coming rule to a claimant who had been killed in an auto accident during the drive from her home to work.  The court affirmed the denial of benefits by the agency and the district court.

On the day of claimant's accident, she was driving from her home to her job at the hospital as a mental health worker.  She was in an accident, which resulted in her death.  The court noted that employees are typically not covered for workers' compensation purposes (i.e. the injury does not arise out of and in the course of employment) while an employee is traveling to work.  The court noted that absent special circumstances, an employee on his or her way to work was not engaged in an activity that would be compensable for workers' compensation purposes.

Claimant contended that she was performing a special errand for the employer at the time of her accident.  Claimant also contended that under the "dual purpose" exception, she was making a trip that served both business and personal purposes.  Claimant argued that she was driving to work to deliver completed patient reports to the hospital.  These reports were said to be time sensitive, and claimant was subject to discipline if she did not complete the reports on time.

The agency found there was no evidence in the record to support claimant's contentions, either the "special errand" or "dual purpose" exceptions to the general rule against compensability in the going and coming situation.  The agency specifically found the reports were not due that day and that there would not have been adverse consequences if the reports had not been turned in that day.  The court found that the findings of the agency were supported by substantial evidence and affirmed the agency on this ground.

Claimant also argued that under the "second business situs" exception, some travel from claimant's home to the employer may arise where the claimant's home serves as a secondary office.  The court noted that although agency had recognized this exception, in Waterhouse v. Waterhouse Water Conditioning, No. 1039817 (App. Feb. 23, 1995), this exception had not been addressed by the courts.  The commissioner concluded that claimant was not at a second work site in this case.  Although she did some work from home, the record was said to be clear that the home was not a dedicated workspace or secondary office space.  On substantial evidence grounds, the court affirmed the decision of the agency on this issue as well.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Court of Appeals Affirms Denial of Workers' Compensation Benefits; Rules on Credit Issue

2021 Workers' Compensation Appeal Decisions

2024 Workers' Compensation Appeal Decisions