452 P.3d 1039
Or. Ct. App.2019Background
- Christina King, a long-term substitute teacher assigned through High Desert Education Service District (HDESD), worked at an elementary school in Bend.
- School day: students released at 3:30 p.m.; claimant’s regular shift ended at 4:00 p.m. Principal told staff to leave as soon as possible due to inclement weather; King left shortly after dismissal, before 4:00 p.m.
- While leaving she assisted a student, then slipped on ice in the school parking lot (not owned or controlled by HDESD) and injured her ankle.
- HDESD denied the workers’ compensation claim; an ALJ and the Workers’ Compensation Board applied the going-and-coming rule and denied compensability, finding King had been released and was not under employer control when injured.
- King argued she remained in the course of employment because she was still on the clock, could have been required to return, and had responsibility to assist students in the parking lot; the board found otherwise and the court affirmed on review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the injury within the course of employment (going-and-coming rule)? | King: still within shift; could be required to return; duties (assist students) continued. | HDESD: King had been released; no direction or control; injury occurred while traveling from work. | No. The board’s finding that King was released and not under employer control is supported; going-and-coming rule bars compensability. |
| Does the parking-lot exception apply? | King: parking lot was part of employment premises; responsibility to assist students extended there. | HDESD: parking lot not controlled by employer; exception inapplicable. | No. The board found no employer control over the parking lot; claimant did not challenge that finding and the court declined to disturb it. |
Key Cases Cited
- Meltebeke v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, 322 Or. 132 (Or. 1995) (historical-fact findings bind reviewing court)
- Robinson v. Nabisco, Inc., 331 Or. 178 (Or. 2000) (injury must both arise out of and be in the course of employment)
- SAIF v. Massari, 291 Or. App. 349 (Or. App. 2018) (parking-lot injury compensable where employee remained on duty and under employer control)
- Krushwitz v. McDonald’s Restaurants, 323 Or. 520 (Or. 1996) (describes the going-and-coming rule)
- Cope v. West American Ins. Co., 309 Or. 232 (Or. 1990) (parking-lot exception requires employer control over premises)