Compton v. SAIF Corp.
Docket: 01-07847; A121303
Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon; September 15, 2004; Oregon; State Appellate Court
Claimant sustained a knee injury after falling on a public sidewalk while walking to work, leading to a fractured knee. The Workers’ Compensation Board determined the injury was not compensable under ORS 656.005(7)(a) because it did not arise out of or occur in the course of employment. The claimant, who worked as a bartender for a fraternal organization, took a cab to work on July 5, 2001. Due to traffic congestion, the cab dropped him off at a nearby restaurant parking lot. After exiting the cab, he walked onto a public sidewalk adjacent to his employer's premises, where he fell without any sidewalk hazards present. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found the injury non-compensable, a decision affirmed by the board, which reasoned the injury did not occur in the course of employment nor arise from employment-related risks. For an injury to be compensable, it must meet both the "arising out of" and "in the course of" employment criteria, which are part of a unified inquiry regarding the injury's connection to employment. The Supreme Court has clarified that injuries typically do not occur in the course of employment when traveling to and from work, with the "parking lot rule" being a notable exception for injuries on employer property. The parking lot exception applies to areas where an employer has control. An employee's injury must show a sufficient work relationship with employment, established by the employer's control over the location of the injury. In this case, the board determined that the claimant's injury did not fall under this exception because the employer had no control over the public sidewalk where the injury occurred. Evidence showed the employer did not maintain the sidewalk, excluded no one from it, and exercised no control over the area. Although a municipal ordinance indicated a duty to maintain the sidewalk, it did not equate to employer control sufficient to invoke the parking lot exception. The board found no evidence of hazards requiring employer maintenance. As a result, the injury was deemed not to arise in the course of employment, affirming that the going and coming rule applied without exception. The claimant's injury was thus not compensable due to a lack of connection to the employer's duties. The board's conclusion was upheld, and the claimant's unrelated death was noted, with his wife continuing the claim.