216-447-1551
info@rbslaw.com
Employee Diversions in the Workers’ Compensation Setting
A cashier for a popular supermarket chain finishes her shift, clocks out, and does some personal grocery shopping in the supermarket. After purchasing her groceries, the cashier proceeds to her car, which is parked in the supermarket’s parking lot. The cashier slips on some ice near her car while loading her groceries and falls, suffering injuries. She subsequently files a workers’ compensation claim. Is this a compensable claim? Fortunately, this exact fact pattern came before the Second District Court of Appeals in Montgomery County this past year.The supermarket chain originally argued before the trial court that this was not a compensable claim because the cashier had not been injured “in the course and scope of her employment.” The supermarket chain basically argued that there was no connection between the cashier’s employment and the injurious activity, based upon the time, place and circumstances of her injury. The supermarket chain pointed out that the cashier had left her work station, clocked out, shopped for personal items and was loading these items in her car when she fell. Therefore, the supermarket chain felt that the cashier’s personal grocery shopping after her shift had ended, in addition to the act of loading her groceries into her car, removed her from the course and scope of her employment.
The cashier argued before the trial court that she was within her “zone of employment” when she slipped and fell and that her injury was therefore compensable. The zone of employment has been defined as the place of employment and “the area thereabout,” including means of entry and exit, under the control of the employer.
The trial court ultimately applied the “coming and going” rule to this fact pattern because the cashier was leaving her workplace when she was injured. The coming and going rule provides that an employee with a fixed place of employment, who is injured while traveling to or from her place of employment, does not have a compensable claim due to the lack of a causal connection between the injury and the employment. However, the trial court then applied the zone of employment exception to the coming and going rule (as argued by the cashier) and found that this was, in fact, a compensable claim. Unfortunately, the trial court failed to address or acknowledge the supermarket’s claim that the cashier was outside the course and scope of her employment when she was injured.
The supermarket chain appealed to the Second District Court of Appeals. The court noted that the trial court confused the “zone of employment” analysis with the “course of employment” analysis and improperly concluded that the zone of employment analysis was dispositive. Simply put, the court found that the fact that the cashier’s injury may have occurred within the zone of employment is not enough to establish that the injury occurred in the course and scope of, and arose out of, her employment. Therefore, the court opined that further analysis was necessary.
Considering the totality of the circumstances, the court held that the cashier’s injury did occur in the course and scope of, and arose out of, her employment. The court held that although the cashier briefly engaged in some personal grocery shopping immediately after her shift, she would have had to return to her car regardless. The court felt that the cashier’s departure from the store was logically related to her employment, because she had to leave at the end of her shift. The court also opined that the cashier’s brief diversion to shop was “limited in time, space, and purpose.” The court held that the supermarket chain controlled the parking lot and that there was no evidence the condition of the parking lot worsened in the ten minutes the cashier spent grocery shopping. In response to the supermarket chain’s spirited argument that the cashier was injured while loading her groceries into her car and that said act took her outside of the course of her employment, the court held that if the cashier’s brief diversion to shop was still logically related to her employment, the act of placing her groceries in her car would not change that relationship. The court ultimately concluded that the cashier’s actions did not fundamentally break the connection with her employment.
What can employers take away from this decision by the Second District? First, if you control your parking lot, buy and apply plenty of salt this winter! Second, remember that a brief diversion by an employee, as seen here, may not be significant enough to sever the requisite causal connection between that employee’s injury and his employment. As always, the specific facts of a claim go a long way in determining compensability. Do not hesitate to contact Anthony Baucco or any of the workers’ compensation attorneys at RBS with any questions or concerns regarding the compensability of a claim.