Schoenfelder v. Winn & Jorgensen, P.A., 96-4322
| Decision Date | 19 November 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. 96-4322,96-4322 |
| Citation | 704 So.2d 136 |
| Parties | 22 Fla. L. Weekly D2649 Robert W. SCHOENFELDER, Appellant, v. WINN & JORGENSEN, P.A., and Nationwide Insurance Company, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Robert W. Schoenfelder, St. Petersburg; Bill McCabe, Longwood, for Appellant.
Tirso M. Carreja, Jr., and Warren K. Sponsler of Rissman, Weisberg, Barrett, Hurt, Donahue & McLain, P.A., Tampa, for Appellees.
This is an appeal from a workers' compensation order concluding that the injury appellant, Robert W. Schoenfelder, sustained was not compensable under the going and coming rule, 1 which bars recovery for injuries that occur when a claimant is en route to or from work. We conclude that under the facts of this case, Schoenfelder's injury occurred in the course of his employment, and therefore reverse.
Schoenfelder is an attorney who was employed by appellee, Winn & Jorgensen, P.A. Schoenfelder took a client's case file home the evening of April 17, 1995, to prepare for the deposition of a physician the following morning at 8:30. The parties stipulated that on April 18, Schoenfelder began preparing for the deposition between 7:00 and 7:15 a.m., and that while walking to his car to drive to the scheduled deposition, he was struck by a vehicle. The parties also agreed that it was an essential part of Schoenfelder's employment to travel to client's homes, hospitals, courts in different jurisdictions, and various professional offices for physician and expert depositions.
In reaching our decision, we find no significant break or interruption in Schoenfelder's employment activity beginning with his preparation for taking the deposition and his embarkation to the site of the deposition. This type of trip was a regular part of his employment, and it cannot be equated with an employee's routine travel to his or her office to begin a workday. Cf. Advanced Diagnostics v. Walsh, 437 So.2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983) (). Hence, the going and coming rule did not apply to preclude compensation.
We find Glasser v. Youth Shop, 54 So.2d 686 (Fla.1951), distinguishable. There the claimant had completed the work that he had commenced at home after arising from sleep and was injured thereafter while descending the stairs for breakfast before...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Swartz v. McDonald's Corp.
...the accident was not made pursuant to a request by her employer. Id. In so doing, the court distinguished Schoenfelder v. Winn & Jorgensen, P.A., 704 So.2d 136 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), in which the court held that the attorney/claimant's accident was a compensable event where he was struck by a......
-
Swartz v. McDonald's Corp.
...is essentially for personal reasons, as the JCC found in the instant case. Claimant also argues that under Schoenfelder v. Winn & Jorgensen, P.A., 704 So.2d 136 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), her travel to Orlando was excepted from the going and coming rule and, therefore, was within the course of he......
-
DSK Grp., Inc. v. Hernandez
...to support his argument in favor of this exception, Hernandez relies on three decisions of this court: Schoenfelder v. Winn & Jorgensen, P.A. , 704 So. 2d 136 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) ; Florida Hospital v. Garabedian , 765 So. 2d 987 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) ; and McCormick v. Florida Auditor General......
-
Evans v. Handi-Man Temporary Services and Riscorp
...event to drop off equipment was in the course and scope of employment when injured in a car accident); Schoenfelder v. Winn & Jorgensen, P.A., 704 So.2d 136 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)(holding that an attorney injured leaving his home while getting into his car to drive to a deposition after prepar......