Cox v. Illinois Workers' Compensation Commission
941 N.E.2d 961
Ill. App. Ct.2010Background
- Cox worked as a foreman for Berger Excavating Contractors, using a Berger truck for company business and permitted personal use.
- On July 27, 2006 Cox left a job site with Berger's permission to see his doctor, then headed home in the Berger truck and stopped at a bank en route.
- Cox withdrew about $4,200 (claimant testified to paying carpenters and buying a cooler for work) and returned to the highway, where he was struck by a vehicle traveling northbound on Route 12.
- Cox sustained multiple injuries and was off work for about 47 weeks; medical expenses totaled roughly $78,395.50.
- An arbitrator found the injury was a personal deviation, not arising out of or in the course of employment; the Commission adopted this finding.
- The appellate court later held Cox was a traveling employee and the evidence supported compensation, remanding for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Cox's injury arise out of and in the course of employment as a traveling employee? | Cox contends he was traveling for work and the injury occurred during a reasonable, foreseeable work travel. | Berger argues the bank stop was a personal deviation that removed Cox from the course of employment. | Yes; the injury arose in the course of employment; reversed and remanded. |
| Was Cox's bank stop a substantial deviation that negates coverage because it was personal? | Cox asserts the deviation was minor and re-entry to the route occurred before the accident. | Berger contends the deviation was personal and disconnected from work. | Deviation was insubstantial; Cox re-entered the course of employment and remained potentially compensable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Caterpillar Tractor Co. v. Industrial Comm'n, 129 Ill.2d 52 (Ill. 1989) (defines arising-out-of-employment analysis)
- Brady v. L. Ruffolo & Sons Construction Co., 143 Ill.2d 542 (Ill. 1991) (involves traveling employee risk exposure)
- Scheffler Greenhouses, Inc. v. Industrial Comm'n, 66 Ill.2d 361 (Ill. 1977) (course-of-employment timing and location guidance)
- Urban v. Industrial Comm'n, 34 Ill.2d 159 (Ill. 1966) (traveling employee status duration)
- Hoffman v. Industrial Comm'n, 109 Ill.2d 194 (Ill. 1985) (traveling employee burden remains to prove arising out of and in the course)
- Beattie v. Industrial Comm'n, 276 Ill.App.3d 446 (Ill. App. 1995) (transportation provided by employer expands in-course element)
- Becker v. Industrial Comm'n, 308 Ill.App.3d 278 (Ill. App. 1999) (employer-provided transportation as incidental risk)
- Robinson v. Industrial Comm'n, 96 Ill.2d 87 (Ill. 1983) (insubstantial deviation doctrine in travel context)
- Wright v. Industrial Comm'n, 62 Ill.2d 65 (Ill. 1975) (reasonableness/foreseeability standard for traveling employees)
- Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Industrial Comm'n, 86 Ill.2d 534 (Ill. 1981) (general rule on traveling to/from work with exception for employer-provided transport)