Friebel v. Visiting Nurse Assn. of Mid-Ohio (Slip Opinion)
142 Ohio St. 3d 425
| Ohio | 2014Background
- Friebel worked as a home-health nurse for VNA; travel between patients was typical and often paid; weekends included travel time/mileage to the first patient; VNA began paying differently on weekdays (deducted time/miles for home-office commute)
- Injury occurred January 22, 2011, while Friebel was en route to a patient and transporting passengers to a mall; she sought workers’ compensation for a neck sprain
- Administrative history: BWC initially allowed the claim; district hearing officer denied, finding injury not within course of employment; staff hearing officer later allowed the claim; appellate court reversed, remanding for proceedings
- Trial court granted summary judgment for VNA concluding Friebel was on a personal errand and not within course/arising out of employment; Fifth District reversed, holding injury arose in course of employment because of dual travel purposes
- Majority accepted discretionary appeal on dual-intent issue and held dual-intent doctrine not recognized in Ohio; case remanded for trial consistent with Fisher and related tests
- Dissent argued Fifth District did not rely on dual-intent and that the record was insufficient to decide; urged dismissal as improvidently accepted
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dual-intent doctrine applies in Ohio workers’ comp | Friebel’s position: dual-intent doctrine not relevant; analysis should use in-the-course/arising-out tests | VNA's position: dual-intent doctrine used to determine coverage | Dual-intent doctrine not recognized; apply Fisher/totality tests instead |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate on appeal | Record showed genuine disputes of material facts; trial needed | Appellate court suggested entitlement to benefits as matter of law | Summary judgment inappropriate; remand for trial on merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Fisher v. Mayfield, 49 Ohio St.3d 275 (Ohio 1990) (both in-the-course and arising-out tests required for coverage; liberal construction in favor of benefits)
- Lord v. Daugherty, 66 Ohio St.2d 441 (Ohio 1981) (causation factors for arising-out analysis; totality of circumstances)
- Ruckman v. Cubby Drilling, Inc., 81 Ohio St.3d 117 (Ohio 1998) (factors for arising-out; fixed vs non-fixed situs; totality of circumstances)
- MTD Prods., Inc. v. Robatin, 61 Ohio St.3d 66 (Ohio 1991) (coming-and-going rule; exceptions for special hazards)
- Cardwell v. Indus. Comm., 155 Ohio St.466 (Ohio 1951) (early rejection of blanket dual-purpose approach; needs causal link to employment)
- Griffith v. Miamisburg, 2008-Ohio-6611 (Ohio 2008) (analyzed travel with personal errands under Fisher; no special dual-intent rule)