When an employee is injured while traveling for both business and personal purposes some states recognize a dual-purpose or dual-intent doctrine. The Ohio Supreme Court recently addressed the issue of whether the dual-purpose doctrine is applicable when determining eligibility for workers’ compensation in Ohio. The Court held that the dual-purpose doctrine does not apply in Ohio. Friebel v. Visiting Nurse Assn. of Mid-Ohio, Slip Opinion No. 2014 Ohio 4531.
Ms. Friebel was employed by Visiting Nurse Association of Mid-Ohio (“VNA”) as an in-home nurse to provide services to VNA clients. Nearly every workday, Ms. Friebel traveled in her personal vehicle from her house to the patient’s home. On Saturday, January 22, 2011, Ms. Friebel decided to transport her children to a shopping center on the way to a patient’s home. Ms. Friebel’s car was struck from behind while stopped at a traffic light. Ms. Friebel sought workers’ compensation for a neck sprain sustained in the accident.
An injury is compensable under Ohio’s Workers’ Compensation if it occurs “in the course of” and “arising out of” an employee’s employment. The appellate court concluded that Ms. Friebel was entitled to workers’ compensation because she had not yet diverted from her employment purpose when she was injured because she was on the route to a patient’s home.
The Ohio Supreme Court reversed the appellate court evaluating that an employee’s subjective intent regarding her dual purposes over an objective review of the employee’s actions and nature of employment distracts from the core analysis. Rather, the proper analysis, even for traveling for both personal and work purposes, is to apply the “in the course of” and “arising out of” based on the totality of the circumstances.
Employers should closely review all factual and legal issues regarding an employee’s automobile accident to ensure the employee’s travel was not for a dual purpose. The Court’s holding clearly establishes that an employee’s injury must occur “in the course of” and “arising out of” their employment to be compensable, not the subjective dual-purpose of the employee’s activities. It is conceivable that future workers’ compensation claims involving automobile accidents will be more closely analyzed by the Bureau of Workers’ Compensation and courts. Friebel provides a strong defense to an employee’s application for workers’ compensation premised on a dual-purpose theory.
To read the newsletter in its entirety, please click here.