Spellman v. Christiana Care Health Services
2013 Del. LEXIS 183
| Del. | 2013Background
- Spellman, a home health aide for Christiana, was paid hourly and not reimbursed for home-to-first-patient or last-patient-to-home mileage.
- She used Telephony to clock in/out and manage travel time, and only partial travel expenses were reimbursed through mileage between patients.
- Spellman occasionally visited the Millsboro office for meetings or supplies, and kept supplies in her car.
- On January 14, 2011, she traveled from a patient to her next appointment, then planned a personal medical visit, with departure timing causing a gap in reimbursement.
- She was injured driving home from the Lourdy visit after an ice patch, while not on employer clock and en route to a personal doctor’s appointment.
- Board denied compensation, holding the injury occurred off the clock and not within any recognized exception to the going-and-coming rule; Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the injury was within the course and scope of employment | Spellman contends traveling employee or mixed-purpose trip. | Christiana argues off-clock, no work-related purpose, no exception applies. | Affirmed on alternate ground; scope resolved by employment contract terms. |
| Whether the traveling employee exception applies | Spellman was performing travel integral to employment. | Chr istiana contends exception not satisfied due to personal leg of trip. | Not applicable; analysis grounded in contract terms and totality of circumstances. |
| Whether any other going-and-coming exceptions apply | Spellman seeks application of exceptions (e.g., semi-fixed site, special-errand). | Christiana asserts none apply under facts. | None applied; court focuses on contract terms to determine scope. |
| What is the proper approach to determine scope of employment | Travel-related exceptions and rules should guide the analysis. | Exceptions are merely tools; contract governs scope. | Court adopts contract-focused approach; go-and-come rules are analytic tools, not primary rules. |
Key Cases Cited
- Histed v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 621 A.2d 340 (Del. 1993) (special-errand exception to going-and-coming rule)
- Devine v. Advanced Power Control, Inc., 663 A.2d 1205 (Del. Super. 1995) (traveling employee exception; semi-fixed vs variable sites)
- Bedwell v. Brandywine Carpet Cleaners, 684 A.2d 302 (Del. Super. 1996) (traveling employee exception; personal deviations limit scope)
- Tickles v. PNC Bank, 703 A.2d 633 (Del. 1997) (cautions on going-and-coming framework and related doctrine)
- Storm v. Karl-Mil, Inc., 460 A.2d 519 (Del. 1983) (premises and related considerations to scope)
- Children's Bureau v. Nissen, 29 A.2d 603 (Del. Super. 1942) (early scope considerations in workers' compensation)
- Olney v. Cooch, 425 A.2d 610 (Del. 1981) (cited in statutory context for scope principles)