Henderson v. S.D. Deacon Corp.
Decision Date | 20 April 1994 |
Citation | 127 Or.App. 333,874 P.2d 76 |
Parties | In the Matter of the Compensation of Lisa D. Henderson, Claimant. Lisa D. HENDERSON, Petitioner, v. S.D. DEACON CORPORATION and SAIF Corporation, Respondents. 92-03276; CA A79202. |
Court | Oregon Court of Appeals |
John Mayfield, Beaverton, argued the cause and filed the brief, for petitioner.
Michael O. Whitty, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., argued the cause, for respondents. With him on the brief were Theodore R. Kulongoski, Atty. Gen., and Virginia L. Linder, Sol. Gen.
[127 Or.App. 334-A] Before DEITS, P.J., and RIGGS and HASELTON, * JJ.
Claimant seeks review of a Workers' Compensation Board order holding that her injury was not compensable. The issue is whether the relationship between claimant's injury and her employment is sufficient to conclude that the injury was work-connected and, therefore, compensable. We reverse.
The facts are not disputed. Claimant worked on the fourth floor of an office building that is leased by employer. There are no lunch facilities on the fourth floor. Employer required claimant to take a one hour unpaid lunch break, and her supervisor encouraged her to leave the building during that time. When her lunch hour arrived, claimant rode the elevator to the first floor. She was injured when she attempted to step out of the elevator, because the elevator had stopped above the level of the first floor.
Claimant argues that the Board erred in concluding that her injury was not sufficiently related to her work to be compensable. An injury is compensable if it "aris[es] out of and in the course of employment." ORS 656.005(7)(a). " '[A]rising out of' and 'in the course of' are two elements of a single inquiry, that is, whether the relationship between the injury and the employment is sufficient that the injury should be compensable." Norpac Foods, Inc. v. Gilmore, 318 Or. 363, 867 P.2d 1373 (1994). Each of these elements tests the work connection of an injury in a different way. Both factors must be evaluated in determining work connection; neither is dispositive. As the Supreme Court explained in Phil A. Livesley Co. v. Russ, 296 Or. 25, 672 P.2d 337 (1983), there is not an absolute minimum that must be met for each element of the work-connection test. Deficiencies in the strength of one factor may be made up by the strength of the other. In Livesley, the court quoted Professor Larson:
"One is almost tempted to formulate a sort of quantum theory of work-connection that a certain minimum quantum of work-connection must be shown, and if the 'course' quantity is very small, but the 'arising' quantity is large, the quantum will add up to the necessary minimum, as it will also when the 'arising' quantity is very small but the 'course' quantity is relatively large.
"But if both the 'course' and 'arising' quantities are small, the minimum quantum will not be met." 1A Larson, Workmen's Compensation Law 5-476, § 29.10 (1993). (Footnote omitted.)
The requirement that the injury occur "in the course of employment" concerns the time, place and circumstances of the injury. Norpac Foods, Inc. v. Gilmore, supra, 318 Or. at 366, 867 P.2d 1373. As discussed above, claimant's injuries occurred just as she was leaving her work place for lunch. The Oregon courts follow the "going and coming rule," which provides that injuries sustained while going to or coming from the workplace are not compensable. Cope v. West American Ins. Co., 309 Or. 232, 237, 785 P.2d 1050 (1990).
There are, however, exceptions to the going and coming rule. One exception is referred to as the "parking lot rule." Under that exception, when an employee traveling to or from work sustains an injury "on or near" the employer's premises, the "in the course of" portion of the work-connection test may be satisfied if "the employer exercises some 'control' over the place where the injury is sustained." Cope v. West American Ins. Co., supra, 309 Or. at 239, 785 P.2d 1050. As the Supreme Court explained:
(Citations omitted.)
The Board concluded that claimant did not satisfy the control element of the "in the course of" part of the work-connection-test:
We do not agree with the Board's conclusion that employer did not have sufficient control of the elevator to satisfy the "in the course of" element of the work-connection test. Ownership, or even a leasehold interest in the place where the injury occurred, is not always required. Montgomery Ward v. Malinen, 71 Or.App. 457, 692 P.2d 694 (1984); Montgomery Ward v. Cutter, 64 Or.App. 759, 669 P.2d 1181 (1983). As explained by Larson:
1 Larson, Workmen's Compensation Law 4-132, § 15.43 (1990). (Footnotes omitted.)
See Philpott v. State Ind. Acc. Com., 234 Or. 37, 41, 379 P.2d 1010 (1963).
Claimant contends that the Board's finding that the employer could not require the landlord of the building to maintain and repair the elevator is not supported by substantial evidence. We agree. Employer's lease gave it a nonexclusive right to use the elevator, and provided that the landlord "shall have no obligation to make repairs * * * until a reasonable time after receipt of written notice from [employer] of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Enter. Rent-A-Car Co. of Or. v. Frazer (In re Comp. of Frazer)
...analogous to those contemplated by the parking-lot exception to the “going and coming” rule); Henderson v. S.D. Deacon Corp., 127 Or.App. 333, 336–37, 874 P.2d 76 (1994) (applying the parking-lot exception to circumstances involving an elevator over which the employer had some control). We ......
-
Krushwitz v. McDonald's Restaurants of Oregon, Inc.
...place and circumstances into what would normally be regarded as simple commuting under the rule itself. See Henderson v. S.D. Deacon Corp., 127 Or.App. 333, 874 P.2d 76 (1994). The exception that the complaint reveals on its face in this case is the one noted above that the court described ......
-
Miles v. Bi-Mart Corp. (In re Miles)
...course of" prong, "injuries sustained while going to or coming from the workplace are not compensable." Henderson v. S. D. Deacon Corp. , 127 Or. App. 333, 336, 874 P.2d 76 (1994). That rule is known as the "going and coming rule." Id. One exception to the going and coming rule is the "park......
-
Bruntz-Ferguson v. Liberty Mut. Ins. (In re Bruntz-Ferguson)
...which provides that injuries sustained while going to or coming from the workplace are not compensable." Henderson v. S.D. Deacon Corp. , 127 Or. App. 333, 336, 874 P.2d 76 (1994). That rule applies to injuries occurring both before and after the workday, and it also applies to injuries occ......