2015 TN WC 182
Tenn. Ct. Work. Comp. Cl.2015Background
- Employee Melissa Duck, a convenience-store clerk for Cox Oil Co., fell in water near a store freezer on March 22, 2015 after she had told her supervisor she was quitting.
- Parties agree she fell on employer premises and that she reported back pain, headaches, and sought medical care weeks later; insurer denied benefits.
- Relevant dispute: whether the injury occurred "in the course and scope of employment," making medical evaluation/benefits compensable.
- Court considered affidavits from Duck and supervisors, time records, separation notice, and other filings; parties agreed to a record-review expedited hearing.
- Judge applied Tennessee law on "course and scope" and reasonableness tests for incidents occurring while leaving employer premises immediately after resignation.
- Court concluded Duck was still within the course and scope of employment for a reasonable period while exiting the premises and granted her medical evaluation panel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the fall occurred in the course and scope of employment | Duck: she was on employer premises and leaving immediately after quitting, so injury is within course/scope | Cox: she had quit before the fall and thus was no longer an employee; Lollar limits coverage to "workers" on premises | Held: Court found Duck likely to prevail — quitting does not instantly terminate coverage; exiting premises immediately after quitting is within a reasonable period and in course/scope |
| Standard for expedited hearing proof | Duck: need only show likelihood of prevailing at merits (less than full preponderance) | Cox: argued employee must prove compensable injury by preponderance | Held: Court held employee at expedited hearing need only show sufficient evidence to be likely to prevail; not full preponderance |
Key Cases Cited
- Lollar v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 767 S.W.2d 143 (Tenn. 1989) (presence on employer premises relevant to course of employment analysis)
- Orman v. Williams Sonoma, Inc., 803 S.W.2d 672 (Tenn. 1991) ("in the course of" refers to time, place, circumstances; "arising out of" refers to cause)
- Hill v. Eagle Bend Mfg., Inc., 942 S.W.2d 483 (Tenn. 1997) (defining "course of employment")
- Blankenship v. Am. Ordnance Sys., LLC, 164 S.W.3d 350 (Tenn. 2005) (employee engaged in duties or incidental activities satisfies "course of employment")
- Price v. R. & A. Sales, 773 N.E.2d 873 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (minutes-after-termination injury while leaving premises held within scope)
- Leonhardt Enter. v. Houseman, 562 P.2d 515 (Okla. 1977) (walking out after quitting held reasonable period within course of employment)
- Liberty Northwest Ins. Corp. v. [unnamed on opinion], 776 P.2d 588 (Or. Ct. App. 1989) (injury in parking lot while leaving after termination compensable)