When an Injury Suffered ‘Preparing for Work’ Falls Under Workers’ Compensation

An employee who was injured while scraping ice off his company-owned truck parked at his home is entitled to workers’ compensation benefits, the Virginia Workers Compensation Commission has ruled, reversing a deputy commissioner’s denial of benefits.

“We find that the claimant’s workday began when he began preparing the company vehicle for operation, and he was in the course of the employment when he sustained his injuries,” the commission ruled.

The commission differentiated the case from those falling under the “coming and going” rule, under which injuries sustained while traveling to or from work are generally not compensable as employees are not considered to be “on the job” before arriving at their workplace.

The commission explained that a claimant will be in the course of employment while not at the workplace when “the means of transportation used to go to and from work is provided by the employer or the employee’s travel time is paid for or included in wages,” or “where the employee is charged with some duty or task connected to his employment while on his way to or from work.”

Thomas Beckett works for Shenandoah Fleet Maintenance & Management maintaining communication systems at 911 call centers. He works on an “on-call” basis and travels directly from his residence to the call centers requiring maintenance. Beckett is provided a company truck to keep at his home so he can respond to service calls without having to first drive to the employer’s headquarters in Blacksburg to retrieve a vehicle. He is paid for the time spent driving from his residence to assignments.

According to the case record, Beckett was informed by his supervisor that a recall had been issued for the company vehicle and he was asked to schedule an appointment to get the airbags replaced. The morning of the appointment, the vehicle’s windows were covered with ice. He first scraped the ice from the passenger side windows using an ice scraper provided with the vehicle. As he walked around the front of the vehicle to the driver’s side, he slipped on black ice and fell. He struck his head on the vehicle’s bumper and then the pavement and broke a bone in the middle finger of his left hand.

He was diagnosed with a closed head injury, a cervical strain, and a fracture of his left middle finger.

The deputy commissioner denied his claim, finding his fall occurred during a “preparatory act,” which preceded the course of his employment.

Beckett countered, arguing that he entered the course of employment when he began scraping ice off the windows of the company vehicle before taking it to the dealership.

The commission noted that an “accident occurs ‘in the course of the employment’ when it takes place within the period of the employment, at a place where the employee may reasonably be, and while he is reasonably fulfilling duties of his employment or engaged in doing something incidental thereto.”

The commission cited previous rulings where injuries that happened while the employee was preparing to drive for work in company-supplied vehicles were compensable including ones involving a school bus driver who fell while performing a required check of her vehicle’s oil the evening before she was scheduled to drive a route; a long-haul trucker injured climbing into the truck to load personal clothing in the cab; and a trucker hurt while exiting his truck after parking it at his residence with explicit permission from his employer.

In Beckett’s case, the employer assigned him a work vehicle and instructed him to park it at his residence. On the morning of the accident, he was scheduled to take the vehicle to the dealership for an airbag replacement, as required by the employer. Safe operation of the vehicle required him to scrape ice from its windows. Beckett retrieved an ice scraper issued by the employer and was in the process of clearing ice from the windows when he slipped and fell.

“We find that the claimant’s workday began when he began preparing the company vehicle for operation, and he was in the course of the employment when he sustained his injuries,” the commission stated in its 2 to 1 opinion reversing the deputy commissioner’s finding that the claimant’s injury did not occur in the course of employment. The commission remanded the matter to the deputy commissioner to address any remaining defenses.