420 P.3d 659
Or. Ct. App.2018Background
- Claimant employed by Bend Memorial Clinic as a hospitalist assigned to St. Charles Hospital; primary duties included rounds, charting, and being available by pager while off-site.
- Claimant had no hospital office but maintained a home office with employer-provided computer and medical-record access.
- On the day of injury, claimant turned on his pager at 7:00 a.m., left home at 7:15 a.m. to report for a 7:00 a.m. shift, slipped on ice in the hospital parking lot, and fractured his leg.
- SAIF denied workers’ compensation benefits, invoking the going-and-coming rule (injury while traveling to work is generally not compensable).
- ALJ reversed the denial; the Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed, finding claimant was on duty, subject to employer control, and thus within the course of employment when injured.
- One board member dissented; SAIF sought judicial review arguing the going-and-coming rule barred coverage because claimant had not performed work or been paged before leaving home.
Issues
| Issue | Claimant's Argument | SAIF's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether injury occurred in the course of employment | Claimant was on duty for his shift, subject to employer control, and thus within course of employment when injured | Going-and-coming rule applies: claimant was simply traveling to work (not yet at work) and therefore not in course of employment | Court held claimant was on duty and subject to employer control when injured; going-and-coming rule did not bar compensability |
| Whether lack of active work or pages before departure defeats compensability | Compensability does not require active work or a page at the exact moment of injury; duty status suffices | Absence of work or pages shows claimant had left work and was merely commuting | Court rejected the argument; prior absence of active work/pages is not determinative if worker remains on duty and under control |
| Standard for applying going-and-coming rule | Rule is never triggered if worker has not left work (on duty/under control) | Rule applies to injuries while traveling to workplace | Court reaffirmed that going-and-coming rule does not apply when employee remains on duty/subject to direction and control |
| Whether travel between home and hospital can be considered part of employment | Claimant’s required availability and employer-provided home tools support that travel was within employment context | Travel was ordinary commute unrelated to services being rendered | Court did not decide that travel is part of employment but found on-duty/control basis sufficient for compensability |
Key Cases Cited
- Krushwitz v. McDonald's Restaurants, 323 Or. 520, 919 P.2d 465 (establishing the going-and-coming rule)
- Robinson v. Nabisco, Inc., 331 Or. 178, 11 P.3d 1286 (course-of-employment test: time, place, circumstances)
- Fred Meyer, Inc. v. Hayes, 325 Or. 592, 943 P.2d 197 (defining course-of-employment factors)
- U.S. Bank v. Pohrman, 272 Or. App. 31, 354 P.3d 722 (explaining when going-and-coming rule is not triggered)
- Philpott v. State Ind. Acc. Com., 234 Or. 37, 379 P.2d 1010 (reasoning behind suspension of employer-employee relationship during commute)
- Enterprise Rent-A-Car Co. of Oregon v. Frazer, 252 Or. App. 726, 289 P.3d 277 (going-and-coming rule application and exceptions)
- Andrews v. Tektronix, Inc., 323 Or. 154, 915 P.2d 972 (compensability not dependent on demonstrable submission to control at the precise moment of injury)