Iliaifar v. SAIF Corp.
Decision Date | 28 April 1999 |
Citation | 160 Or.App. 116,981 P.2d 353 |
Court | Oregon Court of Appeals |
Parties | In the Matter of the Compensation of Mir Iliaifar, Claimant. Mir ILIAIFAR, Petitioner, v. SAIF CORPORATION and Don Rasmussen Co., Respondents. (WCB 96-05052; CA A98271) |
Rex Q. Smith, Portland, argued the cause and filed the briefs for petitioner.
Steven R. Cotton, Salem, argued the cause and filed the brief for respondent.
Before EDMONDS, Presiding Judge, and DEITS, Chief Judge, and ARMSTRONG, Judge.
Claimant seeks review of a Workers' Compensation Board (Board) order upholding insurer's denial of his claim. We review for errors of law, ORS 656.298(7) and 183.482(8), and remand.
Claimant sold used cars for employer. He injured his back at the car lot and was released from work by his physician. After several days and two telephone conversations with his supervisor, claimant complied with the supervisor's request to deliver his physician's authorization to be off work to employer. Claimant left his Beaverton residence in a car provided to him by his employer and headed to downtown Portland to the car lot where he worked. On his way, claimant stopped at his credit union, and, shortly after leaving its parking lot, he was injured in a car accident. It is the injury resulting from the car accident that is the basis of his claim.
Employer's insurer denied the claim, contending that claimant was not injured in the course and scope of employment. Claimant requested a hearing before the hearings division, and the administrative law judge ruled in favor of claimant. On appeal, the Board ruled that claimant's injury did not occur within the course and scope of his employment and made the following findings:
The Board's findings are supported by substantial evidence in the record. 1 We take those findings and determine whether the Board drew the correct legal conclusions from them.
The Board determined that claimant's injury did not occur "in the course of employment." It explained:
As to the "special errand" exception to the "going and coming" rule, it reasoned:
(Footnotes omitted.)
On review, claimant argues: (1) that his actions on the day of his injury were in furtherance of employer's business; (2) that the personal delivery of the "off-work" authorization was an act in the course of his employment; (3) that employer had the right to control the time, manner of travel or route of claimant's trip; and (4) that the "special errand" exception to the "coming and going" rule applies.
In Fred Meyer, Inc. v. Hayes, 325 Or. 592, 596-97, 943 P.2d 197 (1997), the Supreme Court summarized:
In addition, the Hayes court quoted favorably from our statement in Allen v. SAIF, 29 Or.App. 631, 633-34, 564 P.2d 1086, rev. den. 280 Or. 1 (1977):
(Citations omitted.)
We disagree with the Board that claimant's actions did not occur in the course of claimant's employment. For many years, Oregon has recognized that injuries are work related that occur in the performance of duties even though the claimant is off the employer's premises and performing duties that are not directly connected with the profit-making function of the employer's business or that are not considered within the claimant's typical job duties. See, e.g., King v. Ind. Acc. Com., 211 Or. 40, 309 P.2d 159, 315 P.2d 148, 318 P.2d 272 (1957); Reynolds v. State Ind. Acc. Com., 141 Or. 197, 16 P.2d 1105 (1932). In this case, claimant's uncontradicted testimony is that employer required the "off-work"...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Enter. Rent-A-Car Co. of Or. v. Frazer (In re Comp. of Frazer)
...to perform” police functions while she was on the street, the “going and coming” rule was “simply inapposite”); Iliaifar v. SAIF, 160 Or.App. 116, 122, 981 P.2d 353 (1999) (“the ‘going and coming’ exception to work connectedness [was] inapplicable” because the employer had directed the clai......
-
Ramirez v. Dawson Production Partners, Inc.
...evenhanded construction of the Act requires us to recognize the conditions traveling employees face. Cf. Iliaifar v. SAIF Corp., 160 Or.App. 116, 981 P.2d 353, 356 (1999) (noting Oregon's longstanding recognition of exceptions to going-and-coming rule without reference to passage in 1995 of......
-
SAIF Corp. v. Sumner (In re Sumner)
...to be work related. Nor is it required that the employee be compensated for engaging in the activity. See, e.g. , Iliaifar v. SAIF , 160 Or. App. 116, 122, 981 P.2d 353 (1999) (injury occurred in the course of employment even though claimant was off work and unpaid at the time of the injury......
-
American Medical Response v. Gavlik
...claimant's trip to the station house to comply with her employer's requirement constitutes a special errand. See Iliaifar v. SAIF, 160 Or.App. 116, 122-23, 981 P.2d 353 (1999) (holding that an employee who had been released from work because of a back injury was on a special errand when he ......