This May 1, 2012 1DCA opinion
affirmed Judge Lorenzen’s JCC order. The Claimant appealed a final denying
compensability of injuries he sustained while driving from his residence to
work.
440.092(2) provides that an
injury suffered while going to or coming from work does not arise out of or
occur in the course of employment, and because neither the special errand nor
dual purpose exceptions apply, the 1 DCA held that the JCC correctly denied
Claimant’s petition for benefits.
On June 10, 2010, the Claimant
was scheduled to be off from work, but he had to attend a memorial service for
a client that evening. Although the funeral home had staff to load the
equipment needed for the service, Claimant, who normally would have gone
directly to the service site, chose instead to go to the funeral home to load
the equipment himself, before proceeding to the memorial service. On his way to
the funeral home, he lost control of his motorcycle, fell, and was injured.
The “going and coming” rule, section 440.092(2) provides: An injury suffered while going to or coming
from work is not an injury arising out of and in the course of employment
whether or not the employer provided transportation if such means of
transportation was available for the exclusive personal use by the employee, unless
the employee was engaged in a special errand or mission for the employer.
The question was whether the
Claimant’s ride to the funeral home fell under the going and coming rule. The Claimant
acknowledges that under the rule, an injury suffered during travel to or from
work is not compensable. He asserts that the rule is inapplicable in his case,
however, because on June 10, 2010, he was not regularly scheduled to work, and
the purpose of the trip that day was to attend a funeral service, as required
by his employer. Consequently, he argues, his ride to the funeral home either
constituted a “special errand” or was for a “dual purpose and under those
exceptions to the going and coming rule, he argues, his injury is compensable.
“The special errand exception includes employees who, at the time of
injury, were on a special errand in response to a call from their employers,
and is usually characterized by irregularity and suddenness.” The
Claimant’s need to attend the memorial service was neither irregular nor
sudden. Rather, being present at such services was a regular part of his job
responsibilities.. The facts do not show that the employer asked Claimant at
the last minute to attend the service or to go to the funeral home for some
purpose. Thus, the special errand exception does not apply.
Under the dual purpose doctrine, “an injury which occurs as a result of
a trip, a concurrent cause of which was a business purpose, is within the
course and scope of employment, even if the trip also served a personal
purpose, such as going to and coming from work.” The sole purpose of
Claimant’s travel at the time of the accident was to go to work; regardless of
whether he was required to go to the funeral home before heading to the service
that day, he had not yet undertaken any business of the employer at the time of
the accident. Because Claimant was simply going to work—travel deemed personal
by section 440.092(2)—there was no business purpose to his travel. Thus, the
dual purpose exception does not apply.
Comments
Post a Comment