The “coming and going rule” in comp cases gets a lot of attention but an interesting case out of Idaho puts a new twist on that scenario. A worker was injured in a car accident as she was leaving a doctor’s appointment for a whole different work injury, and she asked that her new injuries be eligible for comp as well.

Barbara Kelly was at an Independent Medical Evaluation (IME) on November 15, 2013 that was scheduled by her employer’s insurer, the Idaho State Insurance Fund (Surety). She had suffered a compensable work injury a month earlier at Blue Ribbon Linen Supply, Inc. when a cart rolled over her foot. They had paid for her lost time and medical benefits and asked for an IME about a month after her injury. She traveled 125 miles away from her workplace in Lewiston, ID to the examining doctor Dr. Robert Friedman, because he had an earlier appointment at the Post Falls, ID location and she would have to wait a month to see him in Lewiston. Even though Lewiston was much closer to home she went to Post Falls. On her way home from the appointment she was in a car accident that was not her fault. She had severe injuries and was restricted from putting weight on her lower extremities indefinitely, and was in nursing care until the end of February the following year.

The Idaho Industrial Commission determined that her new injuries were not related to her work with Blue Ribbon and therefore not compensable, which Ms. Kelly appealed. The Commission said that an intervening and independent cause was responsible for her injuries, not through her association with Blue Ribbon. For her to win her claim she would have to prove that her injury arose out of her employment and in the course of her employment.

The Idaho Supreme Court decided that were it not for her initial work injury and the medical appointment her employer requested, she would not have been in her car at that specific time in the first place. She made the trip to benefit her employer and was being reimbursed for her travel expenses. If she had not gone to the appointment she risked forfeiting her workers’ compensation benefits, so she really had no choice but to attend the appointment. The courts labeled this case an exception to the coming and going rule because she was on a “special errand” for her employer where she was required to do something outside of her normal duties, but she was still acting for her employer. The court reversed the Industrial Commission’s original decision and said should there be any further proceedings the result should remain consistent with their findings.