Michigan Court of Appeals panel revives workers' compensation case

By Lee Dryden BridgeTower Media Newswires DETROIT-A Michigan Court of Appeals panel has ruled for a plaintiff who sought workers' compensation benefits after he was injured in a car accident on the way to an auditing assignment for his employer. In Smith v. Chrysler Group LLC, the panel reversed the Michigan Compensation Appellate Commission's opinion denying the plaintiff's claim for wage benefits under the Workers' Disability Compensation Act. The case was remanded for further proceedings. The MCAC had reversed a magistrate's holding that the plaintiff's injuries had arisen out of or in the course of his employment with the defendant. The published opinion was written by Judge Mark T. Boonstra, joined by Judges Karen M. Fort Hood and Jane M. Beckering. The case Plaintiff Raymond R. Smith was employed as an auditor for defendant Chrysler Group LLC. He sustained injuries in an accident while driving from his Clarkston home to defendant's Jefferson Avenue North Assembly Plant (JANAP) in Detroit to conduct an audit, which was scheduled to begin at 7:30 a.m., according to the COA report. The plaintiff filed an application for mediation with the Workers' Compensation Agency, arguing that he had been injured on a business trip and was entitled to workers' compensation benefits. The defendant argued that the plaintiff had been injured while traveling to work, which is not compensable under the Workers' Disability Compensation Act. After a hearing, a magistrate of the Workers' Compensation Board of Magistrates ruled that plaintiff's injuries arose out of or in the course of his employment with defendant, noting facts such as the plaintiff was "not an hourly paid employee whose compensation depended upon specific hours of employment with a specific starting and ending time." The MCAC reversed, finding that the plaintiff did not establish three of the four exceptions identified in Stark v. L E Myers Co (1975). COA analysis The panel agreed with the plaintiff's argument that the MCAC erred when it determined that plaintiff's injury did not arise out of or in the course of his employment. The Stark exceptions or "considerations relevant to the ultimate determination of whether an injury to an employee while on the way to work is sufficiently employment-related to be compensable" include: whether employer paid for or furnished employee transportation; whether the injury occurred during or between working hours; whether the employer derived a special benefit from the employee's activities at the time of the injury; and whether the employment subjected the employee to excessive exposure to traffic risks. Although the magistrate and the MCAC analyzed this case principally under Stark, the developed case law now recognizes six exceptions, as set forth in Bowman v. RL Coolsaet Constr Co (2007), the panel stated. "Resolution of plaintiff's appeal therefore requires that we analyze whether any of the six Bowman exceptions apply," the opinion stated. The COA opinion cited Ruthruff v. Tower Holding Corp (2004), which found that, generally, "an employee who suffers injury while going to or coming from work cannot receive worker's compensation benefits." However, in Bowman, "exceptions to the general rule exist where" (1) the employee is on a special mission for the employer, (2) the employer derives a special benefit from the employee's activity at the time of the injury, (3) the employer paid for or furnished employee transportation as part of the employment contract, (4) the travel comprised a dual purpose combining employment-related business needs with the personal activity of the employee, (5) the employment subjected the employee to excessive exposure to traffic risks, or (6) the travel took place as a result of a split-shift working schedule or employment requiring a similar irregular nonfixed working schedule. "Injuries that occur under the above circumstances are compensable because there is a sufficient nexus between the employment and the injury such that the injury was a circumstance of the employment." The panel concluded, with regard to the first Bowman exception, that plaintiff was on a special mission for his employer at the time of the accident. "We agree with the magistrate that plaintiff was on a special mission to the JANAP because defendant directed plaintiff to be away from his place of employment at the CTC that day to perform his duties; the 'particular circumstances' of his trip to JANAP was 'an integral part' of his employment," the opinion stated. The panel also found that the third Bowman exception, which addresses whether the employer paid for or furnished the employee's transportation as part of the employment contract, was satisfied in this case. "As is undisputed, defendant paid for plaintiff's travel mileage when he travelled to perform his job duties at this and other locations," the opinion stated. "Accordingly, there was 'a sufficient nexus between the employment and the injury such that the injury was a circumstance of the employment' rather than a mere commute to work. "Because the first and third Bowman exceptions apply in this case (either of which would be sufficient), we need not address the applicability of the other exceptions, and we conclude that the MCAC erred when it determined that plaintiff was not entitled to compensation." Attorney comments When issuing the Smith opinion, the COA panel "simply acted to preserve workers' compensation coverage for traveling employees that has existed in Michigan for nearly 100 years," said plaintiff's counsel Matthew A. Tyler of Charters, Tyler, Zack, & Shearer in Troy. Most states have adopted a "traveling employee" doctrine providing "an umbrella of protection during the entirety of the work-related travel," but Michigan has not, Tyler said. "The Smith decision does not go so far as to adopt the 'traveling employee' doctrine," he said. "However, it does ensure that men and women working in this state will continue to have a degree of protection under workers' compensation that at least approaches that enjoyed by employees in most other states. "Had the decision of the Appellate Commission stood, it would have stripped that protection from employees unless the travel itself was the primary mission of the job (e.g. test drivers or arguably delivery drivers, truck drivers, and the like). That would have been a radical departure from existing law." Defense counsel Ronald A. Weglarz did not respond to a request for comment. Published: Tue, Jul 28, 2020