NY Court Construes State’s Traveling Employee Rules and Affirms Award of Benefits
Construing the state’s traveling employee rules, as those rules pertain to claims for workers’ compensation benefits, a New York appellate court affirmed a decision by the state’s Workers’ Compensation Board that awarded benefits to a worker who sustained, inter alia, a traumatic brain injury in a motor vehicle accident as he traveled from a hotel where he had been staying to a large parking lot where he would have picked up one of his employer’s bucket trucks for his work that day [Matter of Wright v. Nelson Tree Serv., 2020 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2373 (3d Dept. Apr. 16, 2020)]. The court acknowledged that on each day of his remote work, the claimant traveled from the hotel to the lot where the employer’s trucks were stored, but stressed that such travel was not an ordinary commute. At the time of the injuries, claimant was engaged in a reasonable activity. His claim was not barred by the going and coming rule.
Background
Claimant resided in St. Lawrence County. He worked for a tree service company and, at all times relevant, was assigned to work at various locations in and around Dutchess County, an almost six-hour drive from his home. Because of the distance involved, claimant exercised the option of staying in a local hotel for the work week. The employer paid claimant a $ 65 per diem at the end of each week to defray his food and lodging expenses. Each morning, claimant and his coworkers would drive from the hotel to the parking lot where the employer’s bucket trucks were stored, pick up one of the trucks and proceed to the designated work site. While en route to the parking lot on the morning in question, claimant was involved in the motor vehicle accident.
WCLJ’s Decision
The employer controverted the claim. The WCLJ determined that claimant did not qualify for the outside employee exception because the accident occurred while claimant was en route from the hotel to the same bucket truck location he traveled to and from each day. Secondarily, the WCLJ observed that claimant was not required to stay in the hotel and could have commuted from home.
Board Reverses
The Board reversed. It employed the traveling employee exception, pursuant to which injuries to a traveling employee may be compensable even if the employee at the time of the accident was not engaged in the duties of his or her employment, provided that the employee was engaged in a reasonable activity.
Appellate Court Decision
The appellate court agreed with the Board. While the claimant was not required to stay in the hotel, commuting each day would not have been reasonable. All of claimant’s co-workers, including the general foreman, stayed at the hotel. Under these circumstances, the Board determined that claimant’s status as an employee continued throughout his stay away from home. Since claimant had been engaged in a reasonable activity at the time of the accident, the appellate court found that substantial evidence supported the Board’s conclusion that claimant’s injuries arose out of and in the course of his employment.