Eady v. Medical Personnel Pool, No. 53417

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Florida
Writing for the CourtADKINS; ENGLAND; ENGLAND, C. J., concurs specially with an opinion, with which ALDERMAN; ALDERMAN; ENGLAND
Citation377 So.2d 693
PartiesRita EADY, Petitioner, v. MEDICAL PERSONNEL POOL et al., Respondents.
Decision Date29 November 1979
Docket NumberNo. 53417

Page 693

377 So.2d 693
Rita EADY, Petitioner,
v.
MEDICAL PERSONNEL POOL et al., Respondents.
No. 53417.
Supreme Court of Florida.
Nov. 29, 1979.

Page 694

Robert J. Compton of the Law Office of Robert J. Compton, Fort Lauderdale, for petitioner.

Stephen W. Bazinsky of Walton, Lantaff, Schroeder & Carson, Fort Lauderdale, for respondents.

ADKINS, Justice.

By petition for writ of certiorari we have for review a decision of the Industrial Relations Commission reversing an award of workmen's compensation benefits. Our jurisdiction is derived from Article V, section 3(b)(3) of the Florida Constitution.

The issue in this case is the applicability of the going and coming rule to an employee with irregular hours of work who was injured while responding to a call on behalf of her employer. The petitioner, Mrs. Rita M. Eady, is a registered nurse. She worked for Medical Personnel Pool, a temporary manpower service that provides nurses and other trained medical personnel. Medical Personnel Pool is not an employment service; instead, the workers it hires are and remain its employees.

Medical Personnel Pool provides temporary workers to its clients both on established schedules and on a special request basis. Mrs. Eady and many other employees did both kinds of jobs. They were subject to being called at any time and offered a special request job, even after having just completed a scheduled eight-hour shift. Although an employee accepting a job would have to set out promptly for wherever the special request assignment

Page 695

was, such assignments had the attraction that the employee was always paid for at least four hours work even if the assignment took less time than that. An employee on a special request job would likely be discharged once he completed his task, and thus he would receive four hours' pay even if he had worked only an hour or two.

On May 28, 1976, Mrs. Eady worked a 7:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.M. shift for Medical Personnel Pool at the Pinecrest Nursing Home. At about 4:30 P.M. Mrs. Eady was called at home by her employer and as a result was promptly on her way to a private client's home to do an intravenous administration. The testimony conflicts as to how this initial job was arranged, but that conflict is not material here. Mrs. Eady soon completed the assigned task and returned to her home. Later that evening the same client called Mrs. Eady and asked her to return to change the intravenous bottle. She agreed to do so and was injured in an automobile accident while en route.

The judge of industrial claims determined that Mrs. Eady was within the on-call exception to the going and coming rule. He therefore awarded compensation. Medical Personnel Pool and its insurer appealed and the Industrial Relations Commission reversed, finding that there is no authority in Florida law for general application of an on-call exception. The commission regarded Mrs. Eady as having an irregular schedule because each assignment was separate and could come at any hour. According to the commission, because Mrs. Eady was not requested to perform services beyond those she normally did, the mere circumstance that her assignment originated with a call from her employer did not make the injury compensable as an exception to the going and coming rule.

We disagree with the commission's reasoning and conclusions. The going and coming rule is one of the most familiar and most troublesome concepts in workmen's compensation law. It is grounded in the recognition that injuries suffered while going to or coming from work are essentially similar to other injuries suffered off duty away from the employer's premises and, like those other injuries, are usually not work related. Therefore going and coming injuries are as a rule noncompensable. But numerous exceptions allow compensation in certain circumstances. E. g., Grillo v. Gorney Beauty Shops, Co., 249 So.2d 13 (Fla.1971) (employee traveling for employer); Huddock v. Grant Motor Co., 228 So.2d 898 (Fla.1969) (transportation furnished by employer); Naranja Rock Co. v. Dawal Farms, 74 So.2d 282 (Fla.1954) (special hazard in commuting).

Arguably, the commission was correct in its assertion that there is no general on-call exception to the going and coming rule in Florida law. There is a broad exception for employees who are considered to be on duty at all times, such as police officers. Warg v. City of Miami Springs, 249 So.2d 3 (Fla.1971), Sweat v. Allen, 145 Fla. 733, 200 So. 348 (1941). But an employee who is subject to call or is on call is...

To continue reading

Request your trial
26 practice notes
  • Calvo v. Montgomery Cnty., No. 48, Sept. Term, 2017
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • May 21, 2018
    ...this conclusion. See Johnson v. Fairbanks Clinic , 647 P.2d 592, 596 (Alaska 1982) (pre-surgical meeting); Eady v. Med. Pers. Pool , 377 So.2d 693, 695 (Fla. 1979) (nursing 185 A.3d 161duties); Brown v. City of Wheeling , 212 W.Va. 121, 569 S.E.2d 197, 200 (2002) (mandatory training). Altho......
  • Barnes v. Children's Hosp., No. 729
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • September 1, 1995
    ...at the conclusion of a scheduled eight-hour shift to a special nursing assignment at a patient's home, Eady v. Medical Personnel Pool, 377 So.2d 693 (Fla.1979), and a "line foreman" for a telephone company who was called at home on his day off to check on a broken Page 564 telephone pole an......
  • Calvo v. Montgomery Cnty., No. 48
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • May 21, 2018
    ...this conclusion. See Johnson v. Fairbanks Clinic, 647 P.2d 592, 596 (Alaska 1982) (pre-surgical meeting); Eady v. Med. Pers. Pool, 377 So. 2d 693, 695 (Fla. 1979) (nursing duties); Brown v. City of Wheeling, 569 S.E.2d 197, 200 (W. Va. 2002) (mandatory training). Although the record shows t......
  • Swartz v. McDonald's Corp., No. SC94489.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • May 24, 2001
    ...response to a call from their employers, and is usually characterized by irregularity and suddenness. See Eady v. Medical Personnel Pool, 377 So.2d 693 (Fla.1979). The dual purpose doctrine provides that an injury which occurs as the result of a trip, a concurrent cause of which was a busin......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
26 cases
  • Calvo v. Montgomery Cnty., No. 48, Sept. Term, 2017
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • May 21, 2018
    ...this conclusion. See Johnson v. Fairbanks Clinic , 647 P.2d 592, 596 (Alaska 1982) (pre-surgical meeting); Eady v. Med. Pers. Pool , 377 So.2d 693, 695 (Fla. 1979) (nursing 185 A.3d 161duties); Brown v. City of Wheeling , 212 W.Va. 121, 569 S.E.2d 197, 200 (2002) (mandatory training). Altho......
  • Barnes v. Children's Hosp., No. 729
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • September 1, 1995
    ...at the conclusion of a scheduled eight-hour shift to a special nursing assignment at a patient's home, Eady v. Medical Personnel Pool, 377 So.2d 693 (Fla.1979), and a "line foreman" for a telephone company who was called at home on his day off to check on a broken Page 564 telephone pole an......
  • Calvo v. Montgomery Cnty., No. 48
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • May 21, 2018
    ...this conclusion. See Johnson v. Fairbanks Clinic, 647 P.2d 592, 596 (Alaska 1982) (pre-surgical meeting); Eady v. Med. Pers. Pool, 377 So. 2d 693, 695 (Fla. 1979) (nursing duties); Brown v. City of Wheeling, 569 S.E.2d 197, 200 (W. Va. 2002) (mandatory training). Although the record shows t......
  • Swartz v. McDonald's Corp., No. SC94489.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • May 24, 2001
    ...response to a call from their employers, and is usually characterized by irregularity and suddenness. See Eady v. Medical Personnel Pool, 377 So.2d 693 (Fla.1979). The dual purpose doctrine provides that an injury which occurs as the result of a trip, a concurrent cause of which was a busin......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT