NWCDN Members regularly post articles and summary judgements in workers’ compensations law in your state.
Select a state from the dropdown menu below to scroll through the state specific archives for updates and opinions on various workers’ compensation laws in your state.
Contact information for NWCDN members is also located on the state specific links in the event you have additional questions or your company is seeking a workers’ compensation lawyer in your state.
Course and scope of employment, specifically the question of whether an
employee was merely “coming and going” to/from work at the time of an injury,
is one of the trickier aspects of Texas workers’ compensation jurisprudence,
often hinging on minute details of the particular claim. Any guidance in this
arena is therefore highly coveted, and the Texas Court of Appeals in Amarillo
has just provided some much-needed clarity in Old Republic Insurance Company v. Evans, No.
07-23-00326-CV, 2024 WL 3249336.
The employee in the case was tragically killed in a motor vehicle accident on
his way to work in the early morning. He left home on his motorcycle, arrived
at work, and entered the building by scanning his security badge. However, he
realized that he left his company laptop at home and felt he could not proceed
in his work duties without it. Thus, he departed, returned home to claim the
laptop, and drove to work again, during which time he was involved in the fatal
collision.
The Administrative Law Judge at the Contested Case Hearing determined that the
decedent was not in the course and scope of his employment at the time of his
death, but the Appeals Panel reversed. A trial court jury concurred that the
decedent’s work day commenced when he arrived to work and that he needed his
computer to further the business affairs of the employer, hence he was still in
the course and scope of employment at the time of his death.
The Court of Appeals disagreed, reasoning that the decedent was under no
express direction from his employer to return home to recover the computer, and
thus he was not on a special mission that would otherwise have provided an
exception to the coming and going rule. The fatal injury was therefore deemed
non-compensable.
The complicated analysis required for “coming and going” cases is illustrated
here by the fact that the decision kept switching back and forth, from the ALJ,
to the Appeals Panel, to the trial court, to the court of appeals. See, like we
said, “tricky.”
Copyright 2024, Stone Loughlin & Swanson, LLP