Question

Case 5

In-home nurse may get benefits for injuries from accident while en route to client's home Law Reporter, Dec 2004 Labadie v. Norwalk Rehab. Servs., Inc., 853 A.2d 597 (Conn. App. Ct. 2004).

A home health care worker is entitled to workers' compensation benefits for injuries from being struck by a motor vehicle while en route to an assignment, a Connecticut appellate court held.

Here, a home health care nurse was assigned to perform her duties in the homes of her clients. She took a bus to and from her clients' homes. Her employer reimbursed her for her traveling expenses, but it did not reimburse her for the fares she paid to travel from her home to the first assignment and from the last assignment to her home. After getting off a bus on her way to her first client's home, the nurse was hit by a car while crossing the street, resulting in severe injuries. She filed a claim for workers' compensation, which the commissioner granted. A workers' compensation review board then reversed the finding and denied her benefits, holding the injury did not occur in the course of her employment.

Reversing, the appellate court noted benefits are only given if an employee is injured during the course of employment, which means it has to be: (1) during the time of the employment, (2) at a place the employee may reasonably be, and (3) while fulfilling the duties of employment or something incident to those duties. An injury resulting from employment-related risk, or incident to it or to the conditions under which it is required to be performed, arises out of the employment, the court said.

Noting the coming and going rule provides that an injury sustained going to or coming home from work is generally not compensable, the court said there are exceptions. Those exceptions include if the work requires the employee to travel on highways and if the employee is injured while doing something incidental to the employment or for the benefit of the employer. In this case, plaintiff's travel to and from the homes of her clients was integral to the service defendant was offering its clients, making it a requirement of the job. The employer also paid some of her travel expenses and benefited from her traveling to the homes. Thus, her injury is an exception to the coming and going rule, and she is entitled to benefits.

Plaintiff's Counsel       *Gregory S. Kimmel, Norwalk, Conn.

Documents in this case are available through the Court Documents section in the back of this issue, courtesy of Mr. Kimmel.

Copyright Association of Trial Lawyers of America Dec 2004

Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved

QUESTIONS to ANSWER:

1. Is this a case of criminal or civil action? How do you know?
   
2. Summarize the action of the case:

                   Who is the plaintiff?

                   Who is the defendant?

                   What is the matter under contention?

3. What is the final decision of the case? At what level of jurisdiction was this case finalized (for example, Was the case finalized in a court of appeals? or Was the case finalized at the state supreme court level? or Was the case finalized at the district court level?)

Continued Questions to Answer Case 5

4. What law(s) forms the basis for the final decision of the court? – or How did the court reach its decision? If the court did not use law(s) on which to base its decision, WHAT WAS the decision based on?

5. Do you agree with the court’s decision? Why or why not?

Answer 1

1st Answer: This is a case of Civil action because the home health care worker is entitled to workers' compensation benefits for injuries from being struck by a motor vehicle.

2nd Answer: Summarize the action of the case:

• The home health care worker is the plaintiff.
• The workers compensation review board is the defendant.
• The matter under contention is workers compensation benefits for injuries from being struck by a motor vehicle while en route to her employment.

3rd Answer: The final decision of the case was that the home health care worked should get the workers compensation benefits because her injury is an exception to the coming and going rule, and she is entitled to benefits.

The case was finalized in the court of appeals at the Connecticut appellate court.

4th Answer: As per the coming and going rule, and she is entitled to benefits. The court passed the judgement based on the coming and going rule provides that an injury sustained going to or coming home from work is generally not compensable, the court said there are exceptions. Those exceptions include if the work requires the employee to travel on highways and if the employee is injured while doing something incidental to the employment or for the benefit of the employer.In this case, plaintiff's travel to and from the homes of her clients was integral to the service defendant was offering its clients, making it a requirement of the job. The judgement was based on coming and going rule.

5th Answer: I agree with the court's decision because the injury occured while the plaintiff (Home health care worker) was travelling to work. So, she is entitled for workers compensation benefits.