eNotes: Workers’ Compensation – August 2024 – Washington, DC

SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES

Washington, DC Case Summary

Rieger v. D.C. Dep’t of Emp. Servs.
D.C. Court of Appeals
No. 23-AA-0544, 2024 D.C. App. LEXIS 206

Decided: June 6, 2024

An injury that occurred before the start of the workday, while the employee was travelling on public sidewalk between two parts of an employer’s premises, may be found to arise out of and in the course of employment.

Background

The Claimant was a midwife and faculty member of a hospital system who worked at multiple locations on the medical campus, including the main hospital building, where she had an office, and the medical arts building, where she conducted patient visits. On the morning of the accident, she was scheduled to work at the medical arts building. However, she arrived at the entrance to the main hospital building because she intended to receive a file she needed before reporting to the medical arts building. Before she entered the main hospital building, she realized she in fact already had the file she needed, and then started to walk to the medical arts building. She took her usual route to the medical arts building, which required her to leave the university property to turn onto a public street to access the only entrance to the medical arts building. As she turned onto a public street, a jogger running on the sidewalk collided with her, causing significant injuries. The ALJ found the claim compensable, but the CRB reversed on course and scope grounds.

Holding

The Court reversed the CRB, applying the positional risk test and concluding that the injury was in the course of employment. The Court noted that Claimant’s reason for being dropped off at the main hospital building was for work related reason (to pick up a work document). The obligations of the Claimant’s employment placed her at the location where she was injured (a direct path from her starting point to her end point) and was the but for cause of her injury. The Court held that the claim was not barred by the going and coming rule, reasoning that once an employee arrives on the employer’s premises, the going and coming rule does not bar the claim even if the employee has not yet reached a specific worksite on premises. The Court also held that the injury arose out of the employment because Claimant’s activity (walking on the public sidewalk between premises) was foreseeable and a regular part of her work duties.

Takeaway

This is the second decision in the last few years that marks a trend toward weakening the going and coming rule defense and expanding the premises exception to find compensability in circumstances where the Claimant is engaging in activity that is both foreseeable, and in furtherance of the employment.

Questions regarding this case can be addressed to Jamie L. DeSisto at (443) 641-0558 or jdesisto@tthlaw.com.