Gaithersburg: 301-670-7030
Baltimore: 410-769-5400
Frederick: 301-668-2100
Contact Us For Legal Help

Workers' Compensation Blog

The “Going and Coming Rule” in the District of Columbia

Thursday, September 13, 2018

What tends to surprise a lot of our clients is the fact that, in the District of Columbia, injuries sustained by employees while traveling to work or traveling home from work, are not covered by the District of Columbia workers’ compensation statute. The DC workers’ comp statute is codified in Title 32 of the DC Code. In order for an injury to fall within the statute, the injury must “arise out of” the injured worker’s employment.

An injury is said to ‘arise out of’ ones employment if the injury would not have occurred ‘but for’ the fact that an obligation of the employment duties puts the injured worker in a position where he gets injured. An injury is therefore, said to ‘arise out of’ ones employment when it occurs in the course of the employment on account of conditions of the employment which are the immediate cause of the injury.

Therefore, while we must travel via some mode of transportation in order to be able to arrive at our place of employment, or to return home, the traveling itself is not a condition of the actual employment, and is not an obligation of the physical work we do; the traveling and the work are separate and apart from one another.

However, there are instances where an employee’s travel to and from work can be considered to be a part of the employee’s actual work and an obligation of the employee’s employment.When this occurs, injuries sustained by the employee while traveling to and from work would be an exception to the ‘going and coming rule.’ Some factors that the court will consider are the following:

  1. Was the employee paid for his time to travel to and from work?
  2. Was the employee driving a company vehicle to and from work that he parks in his “home garage?” 
  3. Is the employee paid gas money to get to and from work? 

While there is no bright-line rule, the court will consider one or more of the above factors to see if there exists an exception to the “going and coming rule,” allowing the injury sustained while traveling to or from work to fall within the DC workers’ compensation statute.If any additional information is needed, I can be reached by email: lpisano@bsgfdlaw.com, or on my direct work number of: 301-740-3304.

Fire Fighters in Maryland Have a Great Day in the Court of Appeals

Monday, September 19, 2016

Clifford B. Sobin, Esq.

It is nice to be able to toot the horn of somebody you respect greatly. It is even nicer when that person is your partner. Yesterday, the Court of Appeals unanimously found in favor of a Maryland fire fighter injured in a car accident while on the way to his station to check the mail.

Ken Berman briefed and argued the case in front of seven Judges. I will get to the facts in a minute, but first I want to highlight Ken’s dogged determination. The injury occurred on October 28, 2010. Then:

1) The Workers’ Compensation Commission ruled against the fire fighter in 2011

2) A Circuit Court Judge ruled against the fire fighter in 2012

3) A Court of Specials Appeals panel ruled 2-1 against the fire fighter in 2013

But, Ken remained resolved. I remember well our discussions at that point. He felt strongly that his client had been wrongly denied. So, once again, with pen to paper (or in this case keyboard to screen) he wrote what is called a petition for certiorari. That is a request to the Court of Appeals to consider a further appeal. They do not have to do it. They only accept a limited number of cases every year. But, in this instance they agreed to hear Mr. Roberts’ appeal. Ken wrote convincingly that the issue was one of importance to fire fighters and employees in general in the State of Maryland.

Today, the Court of Appeals found in Ken’s client’s favor.

What Happened

Mr. Roberts was, and still is, a fire fighter in Montgomery County, but the circumstances of this case are applicable to any fire fighter working in any jurisdiction in Maryland. For that matter, the Court opinion benefits any employee in Maryland. Now, let’s run through the facts:

Mr. Roberts had an accident on the job that caused injuries that restricted him from regular duty. Therefore the County required him to work temporarily at a location where he could do light duty (headquarters in his case)

As a fire fighter, he is required to maintain a certain standard of physical fitness. Therefore, he normally started his day, with the encouragement of his employer, working out at an exercise facility around 7:00 a.m.

The County paid Mr. Roberts for a work day beginning at 7:00 a.m. despite the fact that he often did not arrive at the light duty facility until 9:00 a.m. after working out.

Mr. Roberts decided, on the day he suffered his new injury that was the subject of his appeal, to first stop at his regular duty station to pick up County internal mail that was routed to him at the fire station.

Mr. Roberts was in a motorcycle accident while on the way from the exercise facility to his regular duty station to pick up the mail.

The County refused to accept the new injury as part of his old Workers’ Compensation case or as part of a new one. They argued he was not working when he suffered the injury. The legal term they used was that he was excluded because of the “going and coming” rule. That is legal jargon for saying Mr. Roberts was commuting to work.

Ken argued that the proper legal concept was to use the “but for Positional test.” In other words, but for Mr. Roberts’ employment, he would not have been where he was when the motorcycle accident occurred. Since he was traveling from one employment location to another, and along the way stopping for employer mail that he needed to see to benefit the employer/employee relationship, Mr. Roberts had the right to file a new Workers’ Compensation claim for his injury.

The Court of Appeals found Ken’s argument so persuasive that all of the judges signed onto the Opinion.

Why is the Roberts victory important? Because it locks in an evolving concept of law that looks at the reason an employee is where they are when they are injured. It is especially important to employees injured, and on light duty. Frequently, they have to work their light duty assignments in locations different from their normal reporting station, but they have to keep up with what is happening on the regular duty job as well. If they do not, they may run afoul of new rules, not become aware of new procedures, and in general lose contact with what they used to do making transition back from light duty all the more difficult.

When I asked ken how he felt about the victory and to what he attributed it to, he answered:

It was a group effort of the entire firm – from writing the brief, developing the strategy, and preparing me to argue by peppering me with difficult questions – they all made me better. It is a testament to our team approach. As for Mr. Roberts, I felt strongly he had been wronged. I can’t stand when one of my clients gets less than he or she deserves. It is deeply satisfying to me when I can change a wrong.”

Mr. Roberts when he first heard the news, responded, “I appreciate it. You’ve been there every day for me since day one.”

Today’s result reflects a great job by Ken, and a great day for fire fighters. You can read the opinion at http://www.mdcourts.gov/opinions/coa/2014/39a13.pdf.

Recent Posts


Tags

injured railroad workers Workers Compensation Fraud Workers’ Comp Attorney Occupational Hazards Firefighters Attorney Ken Berman Attorney Julie Mirman Injury Report Police Officers Mileage Reimbursement Liabililty Attorney Cliff Sobin Corrections Officers Maryland Workers Compensation Procedure Transportation Reimbursement Maryland Lawyer Injured Fire Fighters Attorney Lauren Pisano Independent Medical Evaluation Permanent Disability FMLA Coming and Going rule Average Weekly Wage workers Compensation Act Maryland Workers' Compensation Claim – Is My Injury Covered? Workers Compensation Benefits for Teachers Firefighters and Hearing Loss Attorney Alan Gross Injured School Bus Drivers Prescription Medication Side Effects Dependent Attorney Ari Laric Workers Compensation for Police Officers Maryland Workers Comp Maryland Workers Compensation Commissioners Medical Travel Expense MSPRC Opioids Attorney Matt Darby Unemployment Benefits Vocational Rehabilitation Benefits Laws and Regulations Workers Compensation Claim Work Related Injury Attorney Allyson Bloom Vocational Rehabilitation Workers Compensation for Firefighters DC Workers' Compensation Disability Insurance National Holidays attorney Natalie Whittingham Veterans Workers Compensation win for 911 dispatcher Medical Maryland Workers Compensation Hearing Personal Injury Accident Report Attorney Nicole Lambdin Fire Fighters Railroad Injuries Denial Auto Accidents Wrongful Death Claim Attorney Gretchen Rogers Attorney Matthew Engler auto accident attorney Incident Report Benefits Coming and Going rule, D.C. attorney Damages Workers Compensation and Bankruptcy Attorney Charles Schultz Injured Courier Worker Occupational Diseases Auto Injury Physical Training Injuries for Firefighters Death Benefits MSEA Criteria Teachers Maryland Fire Fighters Medicare and Workers Compensation Temporary Total Disability Claims Process

Archive

RSS

What Our Clients Say

Known for our unwavering commitment to clients, for our integrity, and for delivering the best results, our clients continue to refer their friends, families and neighbors to us for their legal needs.


"One year ago today I made the call to your office. The best decision I could make. I wanted to share with you how impressed I am with your staff and your professionalism."

Heather P.


"Craig did a great job representing me! He's the lawyer I have trusted with my legal needs because he's professional, knowledgeable, and keeps me informed about my case."

Jaclyn K.


"I would like to express my gratitude for your efforts and dedication for my disability case. It's has been quite a long and upsetting process but you have handled my case in an extremely competent and responsible manner."

Leo H.


"I have recommended Mr. Feldman to several of my friends and colleagues and have heard nothing but excellent reviews. He is the best lawyer I have ever used."

Martin


"I received the check today. I could not believe it until I saw the check. Thank you so much. You have improved my family's quality of life tenfold."

Mike F.


"These guys go above and beyond! They always have your best interest in mind."

Mike W.


"You have been kind throughout this process and I appreciate your professionalism as well as your gentle concern. Thanks for helping us and all the others who need your legal expertise. We are grateful."

Nancy F.


"Thanks to Mr. Shultz's aggressive and professional work ethic style I was able to receive the medical services and compensation pertaining to my case."

Navdeep C.


"I can honestly say this firm is simply TOP NOTCH! They not only have handled countless cases for my members that require their services, they also have gone well beyond their "scope" to help some of my folks in other areas of need. "

Rick H.


"The attention and professional care the staff has taken toward my needs has always been excellent. I have no complaints nor worries that my issues discussed are not addressed."

Tim T.


"I just got off the phone with Craig and let him know how thankful we are to you, him and Ken for all your efforts – you are all really terrific to work with!"

Val K.


Locations Throughout Maryland, Virginia & Washington DC

Gaithersburg Office

481 N. Frederick Avenue, Suite 300
Gaithersburg, MD 20877
301-670-7030 / 800-248-3352
Fax: 301-670-9492

Lutherville Office

1301 York Road, Suite 600
Lutherville, MD 21093
410-769-5400 / 800-248-3352
Fax: 410-769-9200

Frederick Office

30 W. Patrick Street, Suite 105
Frederick, MD 21701
301-668-2100 / 800-827-2667
Fax: 301-668-2000

Subscribe To Our Newsletter


TOP