Summary
In Liberty Northwest Ins. Corp. v. Rodriguez, 776 P.2d 588 (Or. Ct. App. 1989), the employee sustained injuries when he slipped and fell in the employer's parking lot as he was leaving the premises.
Summary of this case from Duck v. Cox Oil Co.Opinion
WCB 86-16114; CA A50160
Argued and submitted May 24, 1989
Affirmed July 12, 1989
Judicial Review from Workers' Compensation Board.
David O. Wilson, Eugene, argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the brief was E. Jay Perry, Eugene.
Marilyn K. Odell, Eugene, argued the cause and filed the brief for respondent.
Before Graber, Presiding Judge, and Riggs and Edmonds, Judges.
RIGGS, J.
Affirmed.
Employer seeks review of a Board order affirming the referee's order, which concluded that claimant's injuries were incurred in the course of employment and therefore are compensable. We review for errors of law and substantial evidence and affirm. Armstrong v. Asten-Hill Co., 90 Or. App. 200, 752 P.2d 312 (1988).
The referee found that claimant was injured when he slipped and fell in employer's parking lot while leaving the premises after having been fired. Claimant was following his normal route from the premises to his bus stop. He fell when he attempted to sidestep a puddle on his path. The parking lot was adjacent to employer's building, and employer was responsible for maintaining it.
The referee concluded that, because claimant was in the process of leaving employer's premises at the direction of employer when he was injured, he was still under the direction and control of employer. The referee also determined that, because claimant slipped and fell while leaving work in a parking lot which employer had a duty to maintain, the claim is compensable under Montgomery Ward v. Malinen, 71 Or. App. 457, 692 P.2d 694 (1984). The Board added a finding that claimant had gathered his belongings and left the building immediately after his termination. It affirmed the referee, relying on 1A Larson, Workmen's Compensation Law 5-285 § 26.10., which states:
"Injuries incurred by an employee while leaving the premises * * * within a reasonable time after termination of the employment are within the course of employment * * *."
Employer argues that the Board's adoption of the quoted rule conflicts with the "course of employment" test articulated in Rogers v. SAIF, 289 Or. 633, 616 P.2d 485 (1980). The Rogers test is whether there is a sufficient relationship between the injury and the employment so that the injury should be compensated. Rogers v. SAIF, supra, 289 Or at 642. We see no conflict between the two approaches under the facts here. The Board found that claimant left immediately after his discharge. The Board also found that claimant was under employer's direction to leave the premises and was leaving them when the injuries occurred. Those are significant factors in finding compensability under the Rogers analysis. See, e.g., Halfman v. SAIF, 49 Or. App. 23, 28, 618 P.2d 1294 (1980). Employer has abandoned its contention that the Board's findings were not supported by substantial evidence.
Affirmed.