When Going to Work is Work: McMorris v. New Haven and the Workers’ Compensation Act

LR-Conference-People-Card-XchangeGenerally speaking, our workers’ compensation laws provide certain benefits for injuries arising out of or in the course of employment.  Certain employees (police officers and firefighters) are referred to as “portal to portal” employees and are deemed to be in acting in the course of their employment upon leaving their place of abode on the way to work, and until their return home after work.  A recent ruling by the Connecticut Appellate Court provides greater clarity for determining when one is working for workers’ compensation purposes.

In McMorris v. City of New Haven Police Department, 156 Conn. App. 822., cert. denied, 317 Conn. 911(June 17, 2015), a police officer often dropped his children off at a day care center on the way to work.  On a day he was doing so, he got into a car accident and suffered injuries; the accident occurred while he was wearing his uniform and before he would slightly deviate from his normal route to work in order to drop his children off at day care.

The Workers’ Compensation Commission found that these injuries were covered by the Workers Compensation Act, as they arose in the course of employment for a portal to portal employee.  The Workers’ Compensation Commissioner found that the police officer’s act of taking his children to day care did not terminate his employment relationship, as he was on his way to work.  The City’s claim that the officer was engaged in a “preliminary act in preparation for work” and thus not protected by the Act was rejected by the Commissioner, particularly due to the fact that the accident did not take place at the police officer’s abode.  Rather, the accident took place during the police officer’s commute to work and thus was in the course of employment.

The Appellate Court affirmed the Workers’ Compensation Commission rulings, noting that a minor or insubstantial deviation from employment does not serve to disqualify one from workers’ compensation benefits.  Furthermore, the police officer was injured prior to even where he would have deviated slightly from his normal route to the police station.  In any event, the Court noted that at the time of the accident, the police officer was “where he would have been expected to be in the course of his employment,” and agreed with the Commissioner’s finding that the act of driving his children to day care was so inconsequential relative to his job duties, which includes driving to work, that it did not remove him from the course and scope of his employment.  PLEASE NOTE: The Connecticut Supreme Court has declined to review this case.

Lessons for all :  The issue of an “incidental deviation” from a work assignment is relevant for both portal-to-portal employees and “regular” employees.  The long standing view is that injuries suffered during “dual purpose” travel are compensable under the Workers’ Compensation Act if the trip would have been performed in the absence of a personal benefit to the employee.  In a very instructive case, the Connecticut Supreme Court found that an employee who was in the middle of an employment-related mission (albeit against the orders of the employee’s supervisor) and injured while mailing a personal greeting card suffered an injury that was covered by the Workers’ Compensation Act; the Court found that this type of deviation from work was insubstantial and would not deprive the employee of the Act’s protections.  Kish v. Nursing and Home Care, 248 Conn. 379 (1999).  Interestingly, it appears the fact that an employee was injured while arguably committing an act of work-related misconduct will not deprive that employee of protection under the Act, as long as the employee was engaged in a work-related mission.  The Supreme Court noted that “when misconduct involves a violation ... relating to the method of accomplishing the ultimate work [to be done by the claimant], the act remains within the course of employment,” regardless of whether the supervisor agreed to the specific act.  Kish v. Nursing & Home Care, Inc., 248 Conn. at 385.

A work place rule that effectively and clearly prohibits deviation from work assignments could give greater support to an employer seeking to discipline the rogue employee.  In addition, such a rule could arguably provide support for a claim by an employer that 1) an employee who has deviated from his/her assignment was not engaged in the course of his/her employment, and 2) the employer thus is not required to indemnify the employee if sued (for example, should the employee get into an accident and a third party bring suit against the employer).  However, such a rule may not eliminate the employee’s workers’ compensation protections.

 

This blog/web site presents general information only. The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice, and you should not consider or rely on it as such. You should consult an attorney for individual advice regarding your own situation. This website is not an offer to represent you. You should not act, or refrain from acting, based upon any information at this website. Neither our presentation of such information nor your receipt of it creates nor will create an attorney-client relationship with any reader of this blog. Any links from another site to the blog are beyond the control of Pullman & Comley, LLC and do not convey their approval, support or any relationship to any site or organization. Any description of a result obtained for a client in the past is not intended to be, and is not, a guarantee or promise the firm can or will achieve a similar outcome.

PDF
Subscribe to Updates

About Our Labor, Employment and Employee Benefits Law Blog

Alerts, commentary, and insights from the attorneys of Pullman & Comley’s Labor, Employment Law and Employee Benefits practice on such workplace topics as labor and employment law, counseling and training, litigation, immigration law and union issues, as well as employee benefits and ERISA matters.

Other Blogs by Pullman & Comley

Education Law Notes

Connecticut Health Law Blog

Recent Posts

Archives

Jump to Page