RINA CALVO v. MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND
Court of Appeals of Maryland, Adkins, Mary 21, 2018
Workers Comp – A bus driver involved in a collision en route to an annual training on her day off may receive workers compensation if she can show that the training was a “special mission” for her employer.
(Dissent – Greene with Barbera and Getty – The “special mission” doctrine shouldn’t apply because there was nothing “urgent” or “special” about this standard, annual training)
Facts:
Rina Calvo is a bus driver for Montgomery County and has been for 20 years. She works Monday to Friday and is based out of Silver Spring.
In 2015, she was required to attend an all-day, mandatory annual training on a Saturday (her day off).
On the way to the training, she was rear-ended by another car while waiting at a traffic light.
Calvo filed for Workers Compensation, arguing that she was on a “special mission” for her employer when she was struck.
Calvo’s claim was granted by the Workers’ Compensation Commission, but the county appealed to the Circuit Court for Montgomery County.
The Circuit Court granted the County judgment without a trial, finding that Calvo was not covered by Workers Comp “going and coming” to and from work.
Calvo then requested review of the Circuit Court’s decision.
Held: The Court of Appeals held that it was wrong to deny Calvo’s claim without giving her a chance to prove her claim that she was on a “special mission” at trial.
Workers Comp – In general, an employer is responsible for compensating employees for “accidental personal injury” sustained “regardless of fault.”
Workers Comp – To receive workers comp, the employee must prove that the injury both resulted from (“arose out of”) and was sustained “in the course” of employment.
Workers Comp – Positional Risk Test – An injury “arises” out of employment if, “but for” the employment, the injury would not have occurred.
From the Case: “The parties do not dispute that Calvo ordinarily did not work on Saturdays, and that the training was mandatory. But for the County’s requirement that she attend, Calvo would not have been driving when and where she was injured. Therefore, under the positional risk test, Calvo satisfies the ‘arises out of’ requirement.”
Workers Comp – Whether an injury occurs “in the course of” employment “depends on the time, place, and circumstances” of the injury relative to her employment.
Workers Comp – “Going and Coming” Rule – An employee injured “going to or coming from work” is not usually eligible for workers comp
Workers Comp – “Traveling Employee” Rule – An employee required to travel for work may be eligible for workers comp for any injury suffered on the premises of a remote work site, between work sites, or doing something “reasonably incidental” to travel performed “to carry out the employer’s business.”
Example from the Case: An employee in Canada for work was eligible for Workers Comp when she slipped and fell in a hotel shower. She was only in the hotel because of work and it was “reasonably incidental” to the required travel that she shower.
From the Case: The fact that Calvo was required to “report from her home to a different, but not very distant, work location does not transform her into a traveling employee. Her injury did not occur on the premises of a different location where her employer required her to stay to perform work functions. Calvo simply does not qualify as a traveling employee under applicable legal standards.”
Workers Comp – “Special Mission” Exception – An employee may be eligible for Workers Comp if she is injured while “travelling on a special mission or errand at the request of the employer and in furtherance of the employer’s business, even if the journey is one that is to or from the workplace.”
Workers Comp – “Special Mission” – A “special mission” hinges on two factors:
(1) How regularly is the journey called for in the context of the employee’s normal duties?
and (2) how “onerous” (difficult or burdensome) was the journey?
Workers Comp – “Special Mission” – “Regularity” – “Journeys made daily, at regular intervals, or that are part of the employee’s regular duties weigh against application of the special mission exception.”
Example from the Case: The Information Systems director of a hospital was injured on her way to work after being called in on her day off to come in and fill out a report due that day. Because she wasn’t usually called in on her day off and because it was urgent that she complete the work that day, she was eligible for Workers Compensation under the “Special Mission” exception.
Example From the Case: A Police Officer who “made regularly scheduled appearances in court once a month to testify about the traffic citations he had issued” got into a car accident while driving to court. The Court determined that this was not a “special mission,” finding that “if the court appearance had been an isolated obligation, the journey to testify might well have been a special errand or mission,” but because it was a “regular duty, periodically to be performed,” the exception did not apply, and the going and coming rule barred him from receiving Workers Compensation for the collision.
From the Case: “Applying the law to the facts, we conclude that it would not have been unreasonable for a jury to conclude that Calvo’s travel to a different location for training—on a day she did not normally work—was sufficiently irregular or unusual to justify a fact-finder’s conclusion that she met that criteria for the exception.” Therefore, the case should have gone to trial for a jury to decide.
Workers Comp – “Special Mission” – “Onerousness” – In deciding whether a journey is “onerous,” the Court may consider:
– the burden of the journey in comparison with the task to be completed
– the suddenness/urgency of the required trip
– the length and time of the journey
– whether the employee was required to work on a day that she did not normally work
– whether this type of trip is part of the “terms of employment”
Workers Comp – “Special Mission” – An employer-assigned, mandatory training at a different location may rise to the level of a “special mission” even if it is not urgent
From the Case: “There is more than one way to qualify as a special mission, and here, the most important factor is that Calvo was required to attend the work-related function on a day she did not normally work.”
From the Case: “Because the undisputed facts permit a reasonable conclusion that the special mission exception to the going and coming rule applies, the Circuit Court erred in granting summary judgment against Calvo.”