Ludwig v. Dakota Cnty, No. WC24-6562 (W.C.C.A Nov. 25, 2024)
The Employee worked as a public service associate for Dakota County. In March 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the employer directed the employee to work from home. She brought all of her office supplies home with her.
A year and a half later, the employee testified that she had a conversation with her manager and the manager of her department on a conference call and was directed to return to work at the office on September 8, 2021. The night before, to prepare for her return to the office, she placed the work equipment she had at home in a bin, including two monitors, a laptop, a three-ring binder, cords, paper, a laptop docking station, and a keyboard.
On the morning of September 8, 2021, the Employee opened the door of her vehicle, pushed the bin full of her work supplies and equipment into the driver side back seat and fell backward onto her lawn, injuring her low back. She testified that she did not know the cause of her fall but speculated that it was the action of pushing on the bin.
On September 15, 2021, the Employee returned to work, using a cane and a roller bag to help with support.
On October 29, 2021, she also suffered a second work injury in which she fell at work, striking her head and knees, exacerbating her pain.
The employee filed a claim petition for payment of medical expenses and wage loss benefits and the matter was heard before a compensation judge on December 21, 2023.
Regarding the October 29, 2021 date of injury, the Compensation Judge found that the injury to the employee’s head and knees had resolved by November 15, 2021, and awarded wage loss and medical benefits for that time. This was not appealed.
Regarding the September 8, 2021 date of injury, the Compensation Judge found that it did not arise out of and in the course and scope of employment because the injury occurred during her commute to work and therefore was not compensable. In her memorandum, the judge reasoned that both the special errand and special hazard exceptions to the commuting rule were inapplicable. The Employee appealed.
The special hazard exception is applicable when (1) the employment exposed the employee to a hazard which originated on the employment premises, (2) was part of the working environment, or (3) peculiarly exposed the employee to an external hazard subjecting the employee to a greater risk than when pursuing ordinary personal affairs. The WCCA concluded that the special hazard exception did not apply because the Employee did not sufficiently prove that the box full of the Employer’s equipment was the cause of her injury.
The special errand exception is applicable when an employee, while off from regular employment, is called to do an errand or sent out on a mission by the employer, the errand is “a special service” that begins the moment the employee leaves home, or the place where the call comes in, and ends only upon return. In other words, an employee on a special errand has portal-to-portal coverage so that any injury that occurs during the trip would arise out of and in the course of employment. The WCCA concluded that the Employee’s September 8, 2021, injury occurred during a special errand while she was in the process of returning office equipment to the employer by request before her regular shift, and therefore arose out of and in the course of her employment.
Takeaway: The special hazard exception requires that the Employee’s injury be caused by a hazard created by the Employer, whereas the special errand exception applies when an Employee is called to perform a service for the Employer while off from regular employment.