The New Jersey Supreme Court has just declined a petition filed by a Lakewood Township Police Department dispatcher to reconsider the standards for workers' compensation claims.
On October 11, 2018, Dawn Latshaw was assigned to work the 3:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. shift at the police station. She worked the first part of her shift and then left the station for her meal break around 6:00 or 7:00 p.m. She drove her own vehicle from the station to the restaurant. She did not perform any work-related tasks during her trip.
While driving back to the station, Latshaw was injured when she was rear-ended by another car. According to her physician, the accident caused Latshaw to sustain permanent injuries to her cervical and lumbar spine and her left leg and exacerbated a preexisting injury to her left ankle.
Latshaw filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits, stating that the union contract provides for the dispatchers to be paid for their time on lunch breaks, even if they left the premises. If the dispatchers worked through lunch, e.g., when emergencies overloaded the 9-1-1 lines, they would be eligible for time-and-a-half overtime pay.
The Township opposed the claim, contending that her injuries were not compensable because the accident occurred while she was "on a personal errand."
On June 24, 2022, the compensation judge ruled in favor of the Township.
Latshaw filed an appeal to the New Jersey Appellate Division.
While the appeal was pending, our Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion in Keim v. Above All Termite & Pest Control clarifying the statutory requirements of that govern the compensability of injuries sustained away from the employee's regular workplace.
The Keim ruling delineates four distinct rules that define commencement and termination of employment in different scenarios: (1) the premises rule; (2) the special mission rule; (3) the paid travel time rule; and (4) the authorized vehicle rule.
The premises rule establishes that, although an injury to an employee that happens going to or coming from work is generally not compensable, such injury arises out of and in the course of employment, and is therefore compensable, if it takes place on the employer's premises.
The special mission rule covers employees who have been assigned by their employers to complete work away from the employer's place of employment if actually engaged in the direct performance of employment duties. Critically, under the special mission rule, the duties must be assigned or directed by the employer.
Under the 'paid travel time rule,' when the employee is paid an identifiable amount as compensation for time spent in a going or coming trip, the trip is within the course of employment. The rule applies (1) when the employee's injury is sustained while going to and from a job site separate from the place of employment and (2) the employee is paid for the time spent in traveling.
On March 25, 2024, Appellate Division Judges Sabatino and Vinci issued a written ruling in favor of the Township.
Citing the Keim ruling, the court wrote:
Here, Latshaw's injury, which occurred on her drive back to the police station from a restaurant, clearly took place away from the premises of her workplace. The accident location was not a place under her employer's control. Coverage terminated when she left the premises. Hence, Latshaw was not covered under the premises rule.
Second, Latshaw is likewise not covered under the special mission rule. By her own admission, Latshaw was not performing any duties "assigned or directed" by her employer when she left for her meal break. She was not engaged in an employer-mandated "special mission." Instead, she was on a personal trip to buy herself food. The employer did not require her to leave the municipal building during her break. Nor did she purchase food at the restaurant for her employer or coworkers at her employer's behest. She could not take any dispatch calls on her computer device or phone while she was off the premises; that was technologically impossible for her to do when away from her desk. In short, Latshaw was not working or performing any work duties when the accident occurred. Her circumstances may be contrasted with those of the employee in Keim, who was injured while driving to resupply his pest-control van with chemicals from his workplace at his employer's express direction.
Third, Latshaw also is not covered under the "paid travel time rule." Latshaw stresses that she was paid for her time on her lunch break, pursuant to her union's contract. But her right to be paid during her lunch time does not, in and of itself, establish the compensability of her accident. The paid travel time rule requires that the employee be "traveling to and from a job site." Latshaw did not leave the police station to travel to a "job site." She was traveling to a personal destination, specifically a restaurant. The same conclusion of non-coverage would apply if Latshaw left the police station to stroll in the park, walk a dog, pick up dry cleaning, or fill her car's gas tank. Such personal errands simply do not qualify under the paid travel time rule. By going offsite from the police station to the restaurant to buy her lunch, Latshaw ceased being within the scope of coverage. The fact that she was being paid at the time does not mandate coverage.
Latshaw filed a petition to the New Jersey Supreme Court, urging the state's highest court to adopt a different mode of analysis, one that hinges upon "positional risk" and other factors.
The Supreme Court has just declined to hear the case.
To join the FAA News WhatsApp Status, click here.
No comments:
Post a Comment