Feiereisen v. Newpage Corp.
| Decision Date | 14 October 2010 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. WCB-09-603. |
| Citation | 5 A.3d 669,2010 ME 98 |
| Parties | Kurt M. FEIEREISEN v. NEWPAGE CORP. et al. |
| Court | Maine Supreme Court |
James J. MacAdam, Esq. (orally), Nathan A. Jury, Esq., David E. Hirtle, Esq., MacAdam Law Offices, P.A., Portland, ME, for Kurt M. Feiereisen.
John H. King, Jr., Esq. (orally), C. Lindsey Morrill, Esq., Norman, Hanson & DeTroy, LLC, Portland, ME, for Rumford Paper Company.
Panel: SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, LEVY, SILVER, MEAD, GORMAN, and JABAR, JJ.
[¶ 1] Kurt M. Feiereisen appeals from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Board ( Goodnough, HO ) denying his petition for award of benefits for an injury suffered while traveling to a workers' compensation mediation for a previous injury.We conclude that the injury did not arise out of and in the course of employment, and affirm the hearing officer's decision.
[¶ 2] Feiereisen began working at Newpage Corp. (f/k/a the Rumford Paper Mill) in 1986 as a belt driver in the shipping department. He injured his neck, mid-back and left arm at work in 1987, and again in 1997. Thereafter, Newpage transferred Feiereisen to a light-duty job in the guardhouse at the Farrington Mountain Landfill. He sustained a gradual injury to his back in 2007 as a result of poor ergonomic conditions in the guardhouse.
[¶ 3] On January 2, 2008, while traveling to the Lewiston Regional Office of the Workers' Compensation Board for a mediation session in connection with all of these work injuries, Feiereisen was involved in a car accident, causing an injury to his right shoulder that rendered him unable to work until August 17, 2008. Feiereisen then resumed work in a light duty position, but has been laid off periodically since that time.
[¶ 4] On June 12, 2008, Feiereisen filed petitions for award for four dates of injury, including the 2008 car accident. The hearing officer granted the petitions related to the 1987, 1997, and 2007 dates of injury, after finding Feiereisen to be fifty percent incapacitated as a result of those injuries. The hearing officer denied the petition for award for the 2008 car accident injury, however, because he found that the 2008 injury did not arise out of and in the course of employment.
[¶ 5] Both parties moved for additional findings of fact and conclusions of law. The hearing officer issued additional findings unrelated to the 2008 car accident injury that did not alter the original decision. We granted the employee's subsequent petition for appellate review pursuant to 39-A M.R.S. § 322(3) (2009) and M.R.App. P. 23(c), limiting our review to a single question: whether the injury resulting from a car accident that occurred en route to a workers' compensation mediation arose out of and in the course of employment.
[¶ 6] In the context of workers' compensation, we have long distinguished injuries that "can properly be said to be a consequence of industrial activity" from those that "are a consequence of life in general." Comeau v. Me. Coastal Servs., 449 A.2d 362, 366 (Me.1982). Only the former are compensated; the Workers' Compensation Act mandates that injuries are compensable only when they "arise out of and in the course of employment." 39-A M.R.S. §§ 201(1), 206 (2009). Determining whether an injury arises out of and occurs in the course of employment involves multiple limiting considerations:
"[I]n the course of" employment relates to the time, place, and circumstances under which an injury occurs, the place where the employee reasonably may be in performance of the employee's duties, and whether it occurred while fulfilling those duties or engaged in something incidental to those duties.... [T]he term "arising out of" employment means that there must be some causal connection between the conditions under which the employee worked and the injury, or that the injury, in some proximate way, had its origin, its source, or its cause in the employment.
Standring v. Town of Skowhegan, 2005 ME 51, ¶ 10, 870 A.2d 128, 130 (citations omitted); see also Comeau, 449 A.2d at 365-67.
[¶ 7] In evaluating whether injuries that occur during travel arise out of and in the course of employment, we must first consider the "going and coming rule," or the "public streets rule." This principle provides "that an accident occurring off the employer's premises while an employee is merely on his way to or from his place of business is not, without more, compensable." Waycott v. Beneficial Corp., 400 A.2d 392, 394 (Me.1979). On the theory that all travelers are in similar "peril" while driving, and the risks faced on the street are not in any way enhanced or changed by one's employment, such injuries are generally not considered to arise out of and in the course of employment. Id. We have explained the rationale for the rule as follows:
[I]t has at various times been stated that such an injury does not "arise out of" the employment, or that it does not occur "in the course of" the employment, or both. Whether stated that in going and coming to work an employee is "exposed to the same hazards, and no more, as other members of the traveling public," or that while outside the business premises and not engaged in any work-related activity an employee is not within the spatiotemporal boundaries of employment, the rule is ultimately grounded in the notion that there is an insufficient connection with the employment context to warrant compensation for an injury occurring in such circumstances.
Id. at 394 (citations omitted).
[¶ 8] When a sufficient connection exists between the employee's presence on the highway and her employment, however, we have recognized exceptions to the going and coming rule. See, e.g., Cox v. Coastal Prods. Co., 2001 ME 100, ¶ 10, 774 A.2d 347, 349-50( that the "dual purpose" exception allows compensation when a trip serves both business and private purposes); Abshire v. City of Rockland, 388 A.2d 512, 514-15 (Me.1978) (); Oliver v. Wyandotte Indus. Corp., 308 A.2d 860, 863 (Me.1973) (); Brown v. Palmer Constr. Co., 295 A.2d 263, 267 (Me.1972) ().
[¶ 9] Feiereisen relies on the exception we announced in Moreau v. Zayre Corp., 408 A.2d 1289 (Me.1979). There we vacated a decision denying benefits to an employee who sustained neck and back injuries while driving home after receiving medical treatment for a hand injury she claimed had occurred at work. Id. at 1291, 1295. The workers' compensation commissioner denied the employee's petition because the underlying hand injury had never been determined to be work-related and, in fact, the employee had never filed a petition concerning the hand injury. Id. at 1291. We held that, notwithstanding the employee's failure to file a petition concerning the hand injury, the focus was on determining whether the hand injury would have been compensable if the employee had already sought compensation for it. Id. at 1294. Reasoning that the employer's obligation pursuant to the Workers' Compensation Act to provide medical services, and the employee's reciprocal obligation to accept those services, had become part of the employment contract, we concluded if the original injury for which she was receiving treatment were compensable, the injury that occurred while traveling from the medicalappointment would also be compensable.1Id.
[¶ 10] Newpage argues, and the hearing officer concluded, that this case should instead be governed by Dorey v. Forster Manufacturing Co., 591 A.2d 240 (Me.1991). In Dorey, a commissioner held that an injury sustained by an employee while retrieving records to pursue her workers' compensation claim did not arise out of and in the course of employment. 591 A.2d at 241. Given the undisputed facts surrounding the injury in Dorey, we reasoned:
Id. at 242 (citations omitted). In discussing whether Dorey's activity at the time of her injury was "implied into the contract of employment," we noted that her retrieval of documents was done not to further her medical treatment, but rather to have them available at an "informal conference" regarding another claim against her employer that the employer was "actively contesting." Id. at 241, 242. We also noted that several other jurisdictions agreed that acts undertaken to pursue a claim against an employer neither arise out of and in the course of employment, nor promote the interests of the employer. Id. at 242 ().2
[¶ 11] Feiereisen asserts that, although his travel was undertaken to pursue a claim against the employer, his participation was mandatory and,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Estate of Sullwold v. Salvation Army, Docket No. WCB–13–541.
...duties, and whether it occurred while fulfilling those duties or engaged in something incidental to those duties.” Feiereisen v. Newpage Corp., 2010 ME 98, ¶ 6, 5 A.3d 669 (quotation marks omitted). Here, the hearing officer found that, although Sullwold was walking on the treadmill at the ......
- In re Cameron W.