On September 4, 2012, the Third District Court of Appeals found in favor of the employer and reversed an Industrial Commission decision allowing a workers’ compensation claim for an injury sustained during an overnight stay paid for and required by the employer. Woodard v. Cassens Transport Co., 2012-Ohio-4015.
Gregory Woodard was a car hauler for Cassens Transport Company and was assigned to its terminal in Marysville, Ohio. While traveling to Lafeyette, Indiana, Mr. Woodard was required to stay overnight so that he could pick up cars the next morning. His hotel room was paid for by his employer. At that point, he was considered to be “off-duty” in his daily driver’s log. Around 2:00 a.m., Mr. Woodard walked into the hotel bathroom and slipped and fell on the tile floor, injuring his left knee. Mr. Woodard sought medical treatment and was not able to return to work.
At hearing, both a District Hearing Officer and a Staff Hearing Officer found that Mr. Woodard sustained an injury in the course of and arising out of his employment. Cassens appealed the decision to a trial court. A bench trial was held and the trial court agreed that Mr. Woodard’s work injury was compensable under the workers’ compensation system. Cassens then appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals, arguing that Mr. Woodard was not injured in the course of and arising out of his employment because his trip to the bathroom was purely a personal and private mission occurring while he was off-duty.
The Court of Appeals first noted that in order to be “in the course of employment,” an employee must be engaged in the promotion of his or her employer’s business. Moreover, in order to “arise out of employment,” there must be a sufficient causal connection between the employment and the injury. The Court acknowledged that generally, a traveling employee is considered to be in the course of his or her employment continuously during an employment-related trip. However, the Court also emphasized that a traveling employee must be performing a required duty done directly or incidentally in the service of the employer as opposed to personal business, disconnected with employment, in order to sustain a compensable injury. The Court found that Mr. Woodard’s use of the restroom in the middle of the night was purely a “personal mission” disconnected from his employment with Cassens. As such, the Court concluded that Mr. Woodard’s injury did not arise out of his employment and he is not entitled to participate in the workers’ compensation fund.
The Woodard decision illustrates the fine line drawn in claims where there is a potential legal argument concerning whether an injury arose out of employment. In this instance, the employer had to fight the allowance of Mr. Woodard’s claim all the way to the Court of Appeals after being unsuccessful administratively and in the trial court.