185 A.3d 146
Md.2018Background
- Calvo, a Montgomery County bus driver working Mon–Fri from the Silver Spring depot, was required to attend a mandatory annual customer-service training at the Gaithersburg depot on a Saturday (her day off).
- While driving from home to that training she was rear-ended and injured; she later made up the training session in October.
- The Workers’ Compensation Commission awarded benefits, finding the injury arose out of and in the course of employment under the special mission exception.
- The County sought judicial review; the Circuit Court granted summary judgment for the County applying the going-and-coming rule and rejecting both the traveling-employee theory and the special-mission exception. The Court of Special Appeals affirmed.
- The Court of Appeals granted certiorari and reversed the lower courts only as to the summary-judgment ruling on the special-mission exception, holding that reasonable jurors could find the exception applied; it affirmed that Calvo was not a traveling employee.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Calvo) | Defendant's Argument (County) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Calvo was a "traveling employee" such that the going-and-coming rule does not apply | Calvo argued her travel was incidental to employment and thus she is a traveling employee | County argued she merely commuted to a work assignment and did not stay at a distant site as a traveling employee | Held: Not a traveling employee; Mulready traveling-employee doctrine inapplicable because she was not staying at distant premises to perform work |
| Whether the going-and-coming rule bars recovery for injuries en route to the mandatory training | County: the rule bars recovery because commuting risks are ordinary and the training was routine | Calvo: special-mission exception applies because the training was mandatory, at a different site, and on a day she did not normally work | Held: Going-and-coming rule may apply, but summary judgment on that basis was improper because special-mission exception could reasonably apply |
| Whether the special-mission (special errand) exception applies given facts (mandatory annual training on a day off at another site) | Calvo: trip was irregular and onerous in context of duties and was employer-directed, so exception applies | County: training was routine (annual), not urgent, travel uncompensated and not unusually burdensome—so exception does not apply | Held: Facts (day off, different site, mandatory) permit reasonable inferences the mission was sufficiently "special"; summary judgment improper and case remanded for trial |
| Standard for resolving these questions on judicial review of a Commission award | Calvo: Commission findings entitled to deference; factual inferences preclude summary judgment | County: legal questions may be decided de novo; no disputed material facts | Held: Commission findings are prima facie correct but legal questions remain for courts; here undisputed facts permit competing inferences so summary judgment was inappropriate under Kelly and related precedent |
Key Cases Cited
- Mulready v. Univ. Research Corp., 360 Md. 51 (2000) (adopts positional-risk test and explains traveling-employee rule for injuries while staying at employer-required premises)
- Livering v. Richardson’s Rest., 374 Md. 566 (2003) (positional-risk test; injuries incident to employment on employer’s premises compensable)
- Roberts v. Montgomery Cty., 436 Md. 591 (2014) (positional-risk test applied where travel was incident to work duties)
- Barnes v. Children’s Hosp., 109 Md. App. 543 (1996) (articulates factors—regularity, onerousness, suddenness—for special-mission exception)
- Jakelski v. Mayor & Council of Baltimore, 45 Md. App. 7 (1980) (monthly, periodic court appearances held regular — special-mission exception does not apply)
- Kelly v. Baltimore County, 391 Md. 64 (2006) (procedural rules on judicial review of Commission awards; burden-shifting at summary judgment)
- Tornillo (Alitalia Linee Aeree Italiane v. Tornillo), 329 Md. 40 (1993) (discusses going-and-coming rule and fact-specific nature of exceptions)
- Reisinger-Siehler Co. v. Perry, 165 Md. 191 (1933) (early recognition of special-mission doctrine)
- Wade (Montgomery Cty. v. Wade), 345 Md. 1 (1997) (discusses "arises out of and in the course of" and exceptions to going-and-coming rule)