Intro - Iowa Workers' Compensation - Am I covered going to or from work?
Attorney
(866) 735-1102 Ext 335
It's called the going and coming rule. It's about being covered under workers' compensation when driving to or going home from work. Some trips are and some aren't. What's the difference? It's as easy as answering the following question.
Does your job require you to have a car and to use it during the work day to further your employer's business? If yes, then you're probably covered. If not, then maybe not.
Don't you just love lawyers and how we never can give you a definitive answer. Do you know why that is? Because every case is different. And you wouldn't want it any other way. I'll describe in this multi-part series what's involved in the going and coming rule and give you some case examples to see how it works. Sound good? If so then keep reading and follow this series.
I. Why is there a "going and coming rule"?
I have a client who came to me after having two surgeries on her shoulder. The first surgery was made necessary by a work related injury that the employer agreed to accept. The second surgery was in dispute, not the need for it, but who would be responsible for the cost. The second surgery was made necessary after the client fell at an Iowa rest area after visiting the Des Moines company doctor. The client was heading back to Kansas City, Missouri where she lived. Although she had asked to see a doctor in Kansas City the employer refused her request and made appointments for her to see the Des Moines doctor in the middle of winter. This put her at great risk traveling during Iowa's icy highways. As I researched the subject I became aware of several reasons why the rule existed with so many exceptions.
Along with the development of the industrial revolution, workers' compensation became a necessary feature of the American worker's benefits package. More complicated job tasks, faster moving and more complex industrial machinery, the automobile, concrete and glass high-rise buildings centered in large cities and the ever expanding sales territory lead to more injuries, more severe injuries. Employers have enjoyed an increase in profits. All of these factors have lead governments to realize they should share in the costs of maintaining injured employees healing from an industrial accident. This recognition made it necessary to expand the concept of a compensable injury.
II. What is the general rule?
The general rule is that, absent special circumstances, an employee is not entitled to compensation for injuries occurring off of the employer's premises on the way to and from work. Farmers Elevator Co., Kingsley v. Manning, 286 N.W.2d 174, 178(Iowa 1979); Otto v. Independent School District, 237 Iowa 991, 23 N.W.2d 915(1946). A worker who has a definite place and time of work ordinarily is not considered to be acting within his employment while returning to his home. Farmers Elevator Co., Kinglsey v. Manning, 286 N.W. 2d 174, 178 (Iowa 1979) This is known as the "going and coming" rule. Conceptually, it is clear that the employment is the cause of injuries in going and coming: if not for the job there would be no reason in most cases to approach or leave the premises. 1 Larson, supra, at 4-12. To be compensable an injury must arise out of and occur within the course of the employment. The going and coming rule pertains to the second prong of the coverage test, requiring that the injury arise " in the course of " the employment. This test measures the work connection of the incident as to time, place and activity. Id. at 4-1. It is the claimants burden to prove the injury arose out of and in the course of the employment. Lindahl v. L.O. Boggs Co., 236 Ia. 296, 172 NW 607 (1945).
III. What are the recognized exceptions?
There are several and there may be more depending on the facts of your case and your creativity. They include the following:
(A) Special Errand Rule Exception.
(B) Dual Purpose Exception.
(C) Employer's Assumed Obligation Exception.
(D) No Fixed Site Of Employment Exception.
(E) Extension Of Premises Exception.
(F) Special Hazards Theory Exception.
(G) Zone Of Protection Exception.
(H) Transportation Necessity Exception.
(I) Zone Of Danger Exception.
(J) Divided Premises Exception.
(K) The Social Function Exception.
(L) Lunch Break Exception.
(M) Medical Treatment Exception.
IV. What is the purpose of having a rule if there are so many exceptions?
Our work place has become a complex place. There's more than just the farm yard to consider. The definition of the work place, like the definition of "family" has evolved with time. Computers, fax machines, modems, home-site work stations and other forms of information processors have expanded the scope of the workplace. Automobile transportation, low-cost airplanes, expanding sales territories due to the elimination of tariffs will surely continue to challenge traditional notions of the work place setting. Lawyers have to think globally when they define the job site and the acts that further the employer's business.
You have to understand how your client performs his work before you can appreciate what law may apply to the case. Find out exactly what your client was doing at the time of the injury. Why he or she was doing the act, how the employee believed it would help the employer's trade, whether it has been done before, if it is a violation of established or written rules and how the employer says it should have been done. Then analyze whether it could have been done in the way the employer believes it should have been done. Talk to other employees to see if they have acted in a similar manner in the past. Is there a work rule prohibiting the act? Is it in writing? Was it clearly communicated to the employees? How? When? Is it reasonable? The list of questions is endless. Visit the work place to see how many entrances and exits are available. Visit at the beginning and the end of the client's work shift to observe how employees enter and exit the premises. Discover whether the employer has a contract with the landlord for maintenance of the hallways, doorways, elevators, sidewalks, skywalk, parking ramps and parking lots. Who was in charge of maintaining each structure? Who was responsible for salting the surfaces and keeping them clean of debris, snow and ice? Did the employer hand out or post announcements about construction? Was the employee's car, plane, home computer, roller skates, bicycle needed to carry out the employee's job? Remember it may be the employee's job, but it's the employer's business that usually places him or her in the place where they got hurt. What was the reason the employee felt compelled to be where he was at the time of the injury? Use the "but for" test. Does it help or hurt your cause? Walk the route, drive with the employee, film it and ask yourself: What alternative routes were available and allowed by the employer? Did the employer's rules create greater risks, different risks or require more time? If it is outside the scope of employment, then can you sue the land or building owner?
