The basic definition of a compensable injury requires that the Employee's injury arise out of an occur in the course of his employment. The question of whether the injury occurs in the course of refers to WHERE the employee was WHEN the injury occurred. In other words, was the employee where he was supposed to be in the performance of his job. The "arising out of" portion refers to WHAT the employee was doing when the injury happened. In short, was the employee doing something in furtherance of his job and his employer's interests? It would seem that based on those criteria that an automobile accident that occurs when the employee is going to a work comp medical appt would not be a compensable event. After all, he was not where he was supposed to be to perform his job and was not doing anything to further his Employer's interests when the accident happened. In 1994 the GA Court of Appeals decided in Johnson Controls v. McNeil, that just an auto accident would not be compensable since 1) attendance at the medical appointment was not mandatory; 2) the treatment was not a prerequisite to returning to work; 3) the employer did not set up either the appt or transportation; and 4) the employee was free to use his time for his own affairs. This decision ran counter to a 1985 decision in which a accident that occurred en route to an employer mandated appt WAS COMPENSABLE. Recently, the Ga Court of Appeals offered additional guidance on this question dealing with an increasingly common situation of Employer Provided transportation. On March 29, 2012, the Court issued its decision in the case of Flores v. Dependable Tire. One of the many issues in that case related to additional and different injuries sustained by Mr. Flores that occurred when Mr. Flores was involved in an auto accident while leaving a medical appt related to his injury but in a vehicle owned by a transportation vendor which was paid by the employer to transport Flores to that Mexico appt. Mr. Flores reasoned that the 1994 Johnson Controls decision listed as one of the factors in that Courts denial of compensability for McNeil's injury. The Flores court, however, decided that the medical transportation was not the dispositive issue and denied the compensability of the auto accident as 1) the transportation was requested by Flores' attorney 2) Flores was not going to or from work when the accident occurred; 3) the appointment was not required by the employer; and 4) the employer had no control over Flores' medical appointments.
This decision clarifies the Court's view of such accidents but may leave probably more questions unanswered that it resolves. Here are a few points to ponder 1) If the employer is taking the employee to medical treatment immediately after the accident because the employee had no transportation available; 2) would an Independent Medical Evaluation requested by the Employer be deemed a mandatory appointment in light of the fact that the employer cannot suspend benefits for non-compliance of the medical appointment without leave of the State Board? 3) what about the IME appt scheduled at the request of the employee? 4) if the employer cannot suspend benefits without a release to full unrestricted employment based on an evaluation that occurred within the last 60 days, does the employer scheduling an appt in order to secure such a current release render an auto accident during that appointment compensable? 5) if the MVA is compensable, would the Employer's Subrogation rights attach to a new accident date or to the accident for which the treatment was originally intended?
"Skedsvold & White
Join us on Facebook
No comments:
Post a Comment