Ohio Court Stresses Not All Employer Parking Lot Injuries are Compensable
In a recent decision that outlines and clarifies several important issues related to injuries in an employer-owned or controlled parking lot, an Ohio appellate court reversed a trial court’s determination that an employee suffered work-related injuries when she accidentally slammed her truck door on her finger after she had parked her vehicle in one of two lots exclusively provided employees by her employer [Hinerman v. Savant Sys., 2022-Ohio-2857, 2022 Ohio App. LEXIS 2686 (Aug. 16, 2022)]. Acknowledging that at the time of her injury, the employee was indeed within Ohio’s “zone of employment” and that her injury occurred in the course of her employment, the court found nevertheless, her injury did not arise from her employment. The court also distinguished a line of cases awarding compensation for slip and fall and automobile collision cases occurring in the employer parking lot.
Background
Hinerman worked for the employer at one of its factories. The employer owned and controlled two parking lots near the factory. These were the only places employees could park. The two lots provided the only means of ingress and egress from the factory. On the day of her injury, Hinerman drove her personal truck into one of the parking lots. She exited her vehicle while carrying her lunch box as well as a bag containing several of her employer’s flame-retardant jackets, which she had taken home to wash. A coworker parked beside her and they began to converse. As the conversation progressed, Hinerman accidentally closed her truck door on her right pinky finger and had to unlock her truck to free it.
She sustained a fracture to her finger, which was complicated by a staph infection. Sue also developed cholestasis, a liver disorder resulting from antibiotics prescribed to treat the staph infection. Altogether, she was off work from August 29, 2020, through November 7, 2020. She sought workers’ compensation benefits, which the Board of Workers’ Compensation denied. She appealed and a Commission district hearing officer disallowed the claim. A staff hearing officer also disallowed the claim and the Commission refused her appeal and denied her request for reconsideration.
Upon further appeal, the trial court concluded that Hinerman had a compensable injury. The court explained that under the coming and going rule, injuries sustained by a fixed-situs employee like Hinerman were generally excluded from coverage, but under Ohio’s “zone of employment” rule, the injury could be compensable. The trial court granted Hinerman’s motion for summary judgment and the employer and its carrier appealed.
Appellate Court Decision
The appellate court held that under the circumstances of the case, even if Hinerman’s injury occurred in the course of her employment, the injury did not arise out of that employment. The court stressed that the fact that Hinerman’s injury occurred within the “zone of employment” did not end the court’s inquiry under the “arising out of” prong. To be sure, said the court, traversing the parking lot was one of the hazards of Hinerman’s employment. Hinerman was not, however, injured traversing the parking lot. She was injured closing the door of her truck. Even though such conduct is typical of employees who elect to drive a car or truck to work because it protects their personal property from theft and the elements, it was not a necessary incident to Hinerman’s day’s work.
The court distinguished a number of cases in which awards of workers compensation benefits had favored employees injured in employer parking lots. It noted, however, that in virtually all of them, the injury had arisen from a condition of the parking lot over which the employer had control. For example, where employee’s slipped and fell on ice in the parking lot, or fell while being struck by an automatic traffic gate, or slipped and fell while stepping onto an employer-provided sidewalk, the court had awarded compensation. Here, however, there was no direct tie to Hinerman’s work. The court stated:
Even though Hinerman was injured in an employer-controlled parking lot somewhat near her workplace, she was not injured due to an employer-controlled device in the lot, a physical characteristic of the lot, a hazard on the ground like ice, a motor vehicle accident, or any other risk or hazard which was incident to traversing the parking lot and therefore incident to the performance of her work. She was injured due to her efforts to protect her personal property in a location where her presence provided little benefit to her employer. Although she was carrying work safety clothing at the time of the accident, there is no evidence that fact contributed to her accident [Opinion, 19-20].
The court said that when viewing the evidence in favor of Hinerman, reasonable minds could come to but one conclusion—that her injury did not arise out of her employment with the employer. As a result, Hinerman did not have a compensable injury. The employer and the Bureau were entitled to judgment as a matter of law.