Friebel v. Visiting Nurse Assn. of Mid-Ohio
2013 Ohio 1646
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Friebel worked as a home health nurse for Visiting Nurse Association of Mid Ohio.
- She traveled in her personal vehicle to patient homes; weekdays she was not paid for travel time, weekends she was.
- On Jan 22, 2011, she was in route to a patient when her car was struck; she was transporting passengers to the Richland Mall.
- She sought workers’ compensation; initial ruling found she was not in the course and scope, but the claim was later allowed.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for VNAMO; the court of appeals reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
- The majority held she was not a fixed situs employee and that the injury occurred in the course of employment and arising out of it; the dissent disagreed on the course-of-employment analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the injury was received in the course of employment | Friebel was on an employment route and travel time was paid. | VNAMO contends the accident occurred during a personal errand and not while performing employment duties. | Yes—the injury occurred in the course of employment. |
| Whether the injury arose out of employment | Travel was integral to the job and the accident occurred on the route to work. | No direct causal link between the injury and employment duties. | Yes—the injury arose out of employment. |
| Application of the coming-and-going rule | Travel time to multiple patient visits is part of employment duties; rule does not apply. | Employee fixed to a home and traveling to work is outside coverage. | No fixed situs; coming-and-going rule does not bar benefits. |
| Impact of dual intent (mall stop) on course-of-employment | Dual intent to travel to mall and work site does not negate course status. | Dual intent indicates a personal detour that breaks the course of employment. | Majority: dual intent did not negate course; injury in course; dissent rejected dual-intent theory. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fisher v. Mayfield, 49 Ohio St.3d 275 (1990) (injury must be received in course of and arising out of employment; liberal construction favored)
- Stair v. Mid-Ohio Home Health Ltd., 5th Dist. No. 2010-CA-0114, 2011-Ohio-2351 (2011) (employee on route; frolic and detour concepts discussed)
- Houston v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company, 6th Dist. No. L-04-1161, 2005-Ohio-4177 (2005) (frolic and detour ends when employee returns to original route)
- Ruckman v. Cubby Drilling, Inc., 81 Ohio St.3d 117, 689 N.E.2d 917 (1998) (1998) (coming-and-going rule generally applicable to fixed situs)
- Gilham v. Cambridge Home Health Care, Inc., 2009-Ohio-2842 (2009) (travel time/reimbursement distinguished from control over accident scene)
- Crockett v. HCR Manorcare, 2004-Ohio-3533 (2004) (employer benefits from travel; control not dispositive)
- Bennett v. Goodremont’s, Inc., 6th Dist. No. L-08-1193, 2009-Ohio-2920 (2009) (traveling as part of employment; non-fixed situs)