289 P.3d 277
Or. Ct. App.2012Background
- Claimant sustained a right-knee injury while on a paid break during regular work hours at employer’s call center.
- Break area included a smoking hut about 100 feet from the entrance; employees were allowed to use it and leave the work area.
- Claimant fell returning from the smoking hut after tripping in a pavement gap; MRI showed complex lateral meniscus tear.
- Employer denied the claim; ALJ later ruled the injury was compensable and the Board affirmed the “in the course of employment” finding.
- The Board did not apply the “going and coming” rule or consider its exceptions (notably the parking-lot exception), according to the leading opinion.
- The Supreme Court (lead opinion) reversed and remanded to determine whether the going-and-coming rule applies and whether any exception would render the injury compensable despite the break-period context.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the board properly applied the going-and-coming rule. | Employer argues the rule applies and the board erred. | Claimant contends the board did not need to apply the rule; focus on overall in-the-course-of employment. | Reversed and remanded for applying going-and-coming rule. |
| Whether the parking-lot exception or other control-based factors salvage compensability. | Employer contends no sufficient control/exemption to negate the rule. | Claimant asserts board’s broader control reasoning supported in-course-of employment. | Remand to assess parking-lot exception applicability. |
| Whether the injury can be shown to arise out of the claimant’s employment given the break context. | Employer would emphasize the break and proximity to work. | Claimant’s injury linked to work environment through break-related activities. | Board did not need to decide this separate prong on remand; focus is on going-and-coming rule. |
Key Cases Cited
- Krushwitz v. McDonald’s Restaurants, 323 Or 520 (Or. 1996) (going-and-coming rule general principle; exceptions exist)
- Noble I, 232 Or App 93 (Or. App. 2009) (parking-lot exception to the going-and-coming rule)
- Noble II, 250 Or App 596 (Or. App. 2012) (environmental/causal nexus; employer control informs, but does not alone decide compensation)
- Hayes, 325 Or 592 (Or. 1997) (in-the-course-of prong; brief off-duty activity may be within course of employment)
- Hearthstone Manor v. Stuart, 192 Or App 153 (Or. App. 2004) (parking-lot exception recognized for employer-controlled areas)