Stair v. Mid Ohio Home Health Ltd., 2011 Ohio 2351

Appellant Mary Stair worked for Mid Ohio Home Health, Ltd., paid hourly including travel time, with no regular lunch break, and her day began around 6:00 a.m. traveling to client homes and ended around 5:00 p.m.
She was occasionally required to visit Mid Ohio’s office to drop off paperwork and sometimes to obtain a new assignment or her paycheck, which was often collected at the Mansfield office in the morning to avoid staff lunch hours.
The office was in a strip mall with a front parking lot; Stair was instructed to park in the front and use the front entrance, while the back lot was used by office staff.
On December 28, 2008, Stair parked in the front lot, stepped on ice she had not seen, and fell while leaving the office with a torn rotator cuff, after receiving an additional assignment that day.
The district hearing officer denied workers’ compensation benefits, ruling the injury was not work-related because the parking lot was not owned or controlled by Mid Ohio.
The trial court granted summary judgment for the employer; Stair appeals challenging the summary judgment and arguing she was not a fixed-situs employee and that her injury arose out of and in the course of her employment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Stair is a fixed-situs employee under the coming-and-going rule	Stair was in the office district for employment duties and the parking lot was part of the employment zone.	Stair’s injury occurred while commuting to a non-work site (parking lot not controlled by employer) and thus not within fixed-situs rule.	Stair is not a fixed-situs employee; coming-and-going does not apply.
Whether Stair’s injury arose out of and in the course of employment	Her presence at the office to obtain assignments and pay is within the scope of employment and the injury occurred in that zone.	Injury occurred during a personal errand or in a non-work setting; not sufficiently connected to employment.	No, the injury arises out of and during the course of employment; causation prong satisfied.
Whether the totality of the circumstances supports compensability under Fisher	The facts show a strong causal connection between employment duties and the injury.	No adequate connection shown beyond routine commuting and non-work parking.	The totality of circumstances supports compensability; remand for proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Lohnes v. Young, 175 Ohio St. 291 (Ohio 1963) (establishes narrow scope of workers’ compensation fund)
Bralley v. Daugherty, 61 Ohio St.2d 302 (Ohio 1980) (strictly construed connection between injury and employment)
Fisher v. Mayfield, 49 Ohio St.3d 275 (Ohio 1990) (two-prong test: arising out of and in the course of employment; liberal in favor of benefits)
Ruckman v. Cubby Drilling, Inc., 81 Ohio St.3d 117 (Ohio 1998) (coming-and-going rule; fixed-situs inquiry with totality-of-circumstances exception)
Sebek v. Cleveland Graphite Bronze Co., 164 Ohio St. 693 (Ohio 1947) (injury in course of employment may occur even when not performing duties at the moment)