eNotes: Workers’ Compensation – April 2024 – Maryland

SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES

Maryland Case Summary

In Re: Payton
No. 1122, 2022 Term
Maryland Court of Special Appeals

Decided: March 4, 2024

No exceptions to the coming and going rule applied, rendering a claim non-compensable.

Background:

The Claimant, a police officer, drove to work and from the parking lot used a remote application to clock in before his paid shift began. The Claimant had not attended roll call or been inspected or assigned a squad car, because before he entered his precinct, he realized he left his work radio at home. He asked and received his supervisor’s permission to go home and get his radio. His supervisor did not realize that the Claimant had already clocked in. On the Claimant’s way back to work he was severely injured because of an auto accident. At a hearing on compensability, the Claimant argued he was working when he was injured, and that at least one of three exceptions to the coming and going rule applied: dual purpose, special mission, and/or free transportation. The Employer argued that the Claimant was commuting back to the precinct as he had not actually begun to work despite his use of a remote application to clock in and argued that no exception to the coming and going rule applied. The WCC disallowed the claim, applying the coming and going rule. Claimant noted an appeal to the Circuit Court, which granted the Employer’s Motion for Summary Judgment, finding that the Claimant was engaged in his commute to work. The Court of Special Appeals affirmed the ruling of the Circuit Court.

Holding:

The Court of Special Appeals affirmed. The Court held that the ‘out of and in the course of employment’ element dictates that that when an injury results from some obligation, condition, or incident of employment, it can be deemed compensable. For example, the claim may be compensable if the time, place, and circumstances of the injury show the completion of the travel fulfills a mission of the employer, even if the claimant also derives some benefit or completes some goal. Therefore, the Court concluded that the Dual-Purpose exception means that an injury sustained during travel to achieve a purpose for an employer as well as the employee can be compensable if the employer’s purpose is a major or at least a concurrent cause of the travel. As to the Special Errand exception, the Court held that there is a three-factor test to support a finding that the employer gave an employee a special errand requiring travel: the regularity or irregularity of travel, the onerousness of the task/travel dictated by the employer, and the suddenness of the call to travel. Lastly, the Court reviewed the Free Transport doctrine and concluded that if the employer provides free transport to and from work and an injury is sustained, it will likely be compensable. Here, since none of the exceptions applied, the claim was not compensable.

Takeaway:

This case demonstrates how the coming and going rule and the exceptions thereto operate in a situation where the claimant returns home to retrieve a forgotten item after clocking in.

Questions regarding this case can be directed to Ruth M. D. Jacobs at (443) 641-0573 or rjacobs@tthlaw.com.