CopyCited 9 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 15034, 2011 WL 4389219
...not remove him from the course and scope of his employment. Fourth, his injury is compensable because retrieval of his schoolbooks was an emergency and injuries sustained as a result of an emergency designed to save property are compensable under section 440.092(3), Florida Statutes (2008)....
...Claimant was carrying out a mission that was purely personal and not related to work, incidentally or otherwise. EMERGENCY As an alternative basis to affirm the JCC, Claimant argues the tipsy coachman rule, asking this Court to construe his actions as an emergency undertaking covered under section 440.092(3)....
...d from the recovery effort, even if the property belonged to the claimant, would be included within the section's scope. The significance of the Deutsch holding was that the ownership of the property was not the determinative factor in deciding when section 440.092(3) applies....
...y or people, such as an attempted theft or an assault, the "ordinary standards of humanity" may motivate the individual to take action. If injury results from the action, then the statute deems the injury would "arise from work performed" because of section 440.092(3)....
CopyCited 8 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1993 WL 499235
...tract. Andrews v. Drywall Enterprises, Inc.,
569 So.2d at 823. [1] *597 Securex argues that even if this transportation used to come under an exception to the coming and going rule, the exception no longer applies because of a newly enacted statute, section
440.092(2), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1990). This case presents a question of first impression regarding the extent to which section
440.092(2) has abrogated the exception to the going and coming rule for employer-provided transportation....
CopyCited 7 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1995 WL 133348
...5-218, 219 (1994). However, the extent of deviation is a primary consideration in Florida, and the JCC in this case properly ruled based on the evidence that the deviation was insubstantial. The E/C, by a footnote in their brief, argue the applicability of section 440.092(3), Florida Statutes (Supp....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1997 WL 716088
...In contrast, Schoenfelder had begun his work at home, was still engaged in his task when he was hurt, and was not on the way to his regular place of employment. REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. BARFIELD, C.J., and KAHN, J., concur. NOTES [1] Codified at section 440.092(2), Florida Statutes (1995).
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 26 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 350, 2001 Fla. LEXIS 1071, 2001 WL 543673
...The "going and coming" rule provides that injuries sustained while traveling to or from work do not arise out of and in the course of employment and, therefore, are not compensable. See Bechtel Constr. Co. v. Lehning,
684 So.2d 334 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); George v. Woodville Lumber Co.,
382 So.2d 802, 803 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); §
440.092(2), Fla. Stat. (1995). This rule governing compensability of workers' compensation claims is codified in section
440.092(2), Florida Statutes (1995). Section
440.092(2) provides: An injury suffered while going to or coming from work is not an injury arising out of and in the course of employment whether or not the employer provided transportation if such means of transportation was available for the exclusive personal use by the employee, unless the employee was engaged in a special errand or mission for the employer. §
440.092(2), Fla....
...no exact formula can be laid down which will automatically solve every case. See Sweat v. Allen,
145 Fla. 733,
200 So. 348 (1941), superseded on other grounds by, Ch. 82-146, Laws of Fla. Despite the broad application of the "going and coming" rule, section
440.092 delineates several exceptions. [1] *943 Because the term "dual purpose doctrine" does not appear in section
440.092, the respondents question whether the statutory phrase "special errand or mission" incorporates both the special errand exception and the dual purpose doctrine....
...air in Orlando. I agree that the majority has properly applied our holding in Nikko. PARIENTE, J., concurs. WELLS, C.J., dissenting. I dissent because I agree with the wellreasoned opinion of the majority on the First District and the application of section 440.092(2), Florida Statutes, by the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC)....
...where the employer provides the employee's transportation to and from work incident to an express or implied agreement. See Huddock v. Grant Motor Co.,
228 So.2d 898, 899-900 (Fla. 1969); Povia Bros. Farms v. Velez,
74 So.2d 103, 104-05 (Fla.1954). Section
440.092(2) eliminates this exception when the means of transportation is available for the employee's exclusive personal use. See §
440.092(2), Fla. Stat. (1995). Section
440.092(4) addresses the exception for traveling employees, which allows compensation for traveling employees injured during their travel status. See Grillo v. Gorney Beauty Shops Co.,
249 So.2d 13, 15 (Fla.1971). Section
440.092(4) limits the traveling employee exception when an employee is merely traveling to or from work. See §
440.092(4), Fla....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1996 WL 316216
...American Airlines and Alexsis (E/C) appeal an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC), which determined that the claimant's accident was compensable and awarded benefits. The JCC determined that the claimant's accident was compensable under section 440.092(4), Florida Statutes (Supp.1994), the personal comfort doctrine and, in the alternative, the bunkhouse rule. Because the legislature did not abrogate the personal comfort doctrine or the bunkhouse rule in the 1994 amendments to section 440.092(4), Florida Statutes, and because the JCC's determination that the claimant was actively engaged in the duties of her employment under section 440.092(4), Florida Statutes (Supp.1994), at the time of her accident is supported by competent substantial evidence, we affirm....
...The claimant further testified that she went swimming at the hotel to relax because she had been up since 4:00 a.m. that day. In finding that the claimant's accident was compensable, the JCC determined that the claimant fell within the classification of a "traveling employee" under section 440.092(4), Florida Statutes (Supp.1994), and was actively engaged in the duties of her employment at the time of her accident. The JCC determined that section 440.092(4), Florida Statutes (Supp.1994), did not abrogate the personal comfort doctrine, nor did the 1994 statute abrogate the claimant's status as an "on-call" employee....
...As an alternative basis for a finding of compensability, the JCC determined that the claimant's accident was compensable under the bunkhouse rule. The JCC further determined that the claimant's employment was a major contributing cause of her injury. The E/C argue that the 1994 amendments to section 440.092(4) effectively abrogated the personal comfort doctrine and the bunkhouse rule as it pertains to traveling employees. Chapter 93-415, Laws of Florida, effective January 1, 1994, provides: 440.092 Special requirements for compensability; deviation from employment; subsequent intervening accidents. (4) TRAVELING EMPLOYEES.An employee who is required to travel in connection with his employment who suffers an injury while in travel st...
...ded in subsection (2), which shall include travel necessary to and from the place where such duties are to be performed and other activities reasonably required by the travel status. We hold that, under the express language of the 1994 amendments to section 440.092(4), the legislature did not abrogate either the personal comfort doctrine or the bunkhouse rule. If the legislature had intended to abrogate the personal comfort doctrine or the bunkhouse rule when it amended section 440.092(4), it could have done so. Whether a claimant was "actively engaged in the duties of his employment" under section 440.092(4), Florida Statutes (Supp.1994), at the time of an accident is a question of fact for the JCC. In the present case, we find that the JCC's conclusion that *943 the claimant was actively engaged in the duties of her employment under section 440.092(4), Florida Statutes (Supp.1994), at the time of her accident is supported by competent substantial evidence....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1998 WL 821772
...or appellee, McDonald's Corporation (the employer), appeals an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) denying compensability of her petition for benefits on the ground that her claim was barred by the operation of the going and coming rule, section 440.092(2), Florida Statutes (1995)....
...Going and Coming Rule Under the going and coming rule, "injuries sustained by employees when going to or returning from their regular place of work are not deemed to arise out of and in the course of their employment." Sweat v. Allen,
145 Fla. 733,
200 So. 348, 350 (1941). The going and coming rule has been codified in section
440.092(2), Florida Statutes (1995), as follows: Going or ComingAn injury suffered while going to or coming from work is not an injury arising out of and in the course of employment whether or not the employer provided transportation if suc...
...completed an errand assigned by his employer). The Workers' Compensation Law now treats even traveling employees as outside the scope of their employment, while they are going to and coming from work, Ch. 93-415, Laws of Fla., § 6, at 78 (amending section 440.092(4), Florida Statutes (1995)), but only if an exception to the going and coming rule does not apply. Although section 440.092(2), Florida Statutes (1995), states broadly that an "injury suffered while going to or coming from work is not an injury arising out of and in the course of employment," the cases are clear that the statutory codification of the going...
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 20 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 1266
...Strauss of McClain & Strauss, Tampa, for appellees. PER CURIAM. The claimant appeals a workers' compensation order in which the judge of compensation claims found that injuries the claimant sustained while traveling from work were not compensable. We conclude that the judge improperly applied section 440.092(2), Florida Statutes (1991), and reverse the order on appeal....
...ting in any way on behalf of the employer or doing any errand or mission for the employer. The judge concluded that because the claimant was just going home after work, he had not demonstrated an exception to the "going and coming" rule set forth in section 440.092(2), Florida Statutes (1991)....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2008 WL 828958
...d reprimand if he failed to do so. In fact, Claimant testified that he did park in the new spot until his vehicle was damaged in an accident while parked there. The JCC found that Claimant's injury fell within the "going or coming" rule set forth in section 440.092(2), Florida Statutes (2004), and denied compensability....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2005 WL 548232
...DiCesare, II, and Harold E. Barker, of DiCesare, Davidson & Barker, P.A., Lakeland, for Appellee. COLLINS, JULIAN E., Associate Judge. The employer/carrier (E/C) appeal a final order of the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) finding compensable, pursuant to section 440.092(5), Florida Statutes (2001), the injuries suffered by claimant Lonnie Prater (Appellee) on August 20, 2002; and granting the request for nonprofessional attendant care for the period from October 4, 2001, through November 1, 2001, for...
...from hospital in cast brace from his hips to toes, and fact that claimant's doctor had prescribed wheelchair and walker). Compensability of Second Accident E/C's second issue relates to the JCC's finding Appellee's second accident compensable under section 440.092(5), Florida Statutes (2001)....
...Simon, and other witnesses that Appellee and his wife were in route to a scheduled appointment with the doctor for remedial treatment when the August 20 accident occurred. Relying on those factual findings, the JCC concluded that the August 20 second accident is compensable pursuant to section 440.092(5)....
...Finally, E/C claim the August 20 accident is not compensable because Appellee's injuries suffered in that accident are not "the direct and natural consequence of the original injury" sustained in the October 3, 2001, compensable industrial accident. *1269 Section 440.092(5) was enacted in 1990 and re-enacted in 1991....
...ning to Appellee's concerns. Appellee's wife (rather than her daughter) elected to drive Appellee to Dr. Simon's office for the appointment on August 20 for the purpose of "pushing for" x-rays to determine why Appellee's condition was not improving. Section 440.092(5) does not define "remedial treatment." A "remedy" is "anything that cures ......
...is not shown to have been produced by an intervening nonindustrial cause. Arthur Larson & Lex K. Larson, Larson's Workers' Compensation Law 10-1 (2004 ed.). The inquiry into whether the August 20, 2002, second accident is compensable does not end at section 440.092(5)....
...compensability of subsequent intervening accidents involving claimants who were traveling to the doctor to get treatment for prior compensable injuries. The present record supports the JCC's conclusion that Appellee's injuries are compensable under section 440.092(5)....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2001 WL 993570
...ny compensability within 120 days after the initial provision of benefits; (2) there was no competent, substantial evidence to support the JCC's finding that compensability was barred by horseplay and that claimant deviated from his employment under section 440.092(3), Florida Statutes (1997); (3) the evidence showed that claimant's hamstring injury was causally related to his accident; (4) the only physician who rendered an opinion on the matter said claimant has a two percent permanent impairm...
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 4432, 1998 WL 176760
...This case requires us to decide whether a day laborer who was injured traveling from a job site to another location designated by his employer in order to turn in a time card and pick up his pay check was engaged in "travel necessarily incident to performance of the employee's job responsibility." § 440.092(4), Fla....
...An employee required to travel from one job site to another and "actively engaged" in doing so is eligible for workers' compensation benefits because such travel is "travel necessarily incident to performance of the employee's job responsibility." § 440.092(4), Fla....
...to a deposition after preparing for the deposition at home was in the course and scope of employment because he was traveling between two work sites). See also Lucas v. Lucas, 212 Va. 561, 186 S.E.2d 63 (1972). The going and coming rule, codified in section 440.092(2) Florida Statutes (1995), does not apply in the present case because Mr....
...e cards and collect their pay after hours. An employee traveling from the job site to another location designated by his employer to pick up a pay check is engaged in "travel necessarily incident to performance of the employee's job responsibility." § 440.092(4), Fla....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2003 WL 22287845
...Dennis,
465 So.2d 538, 540 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). "An employee who is required to travel in connection with his ... employment who suffers an injury while in travel status shall be eligible for benefits ... only if the injury arises out of and in the course of employment...." §
440.092(4), Fla....
...o, which activity increased the productivity of the employees and was incidentally beneficial to the employer."). The order under review denied compensation on the supposed authority of the going and coming rule. Codifying the going and coming rule, section 440.092(2), Florida Statutes (2002), provides: "An injury suffered while going to or coming from work is not an injury arising out of and in the course of employment...." But the "going and coming rule ......
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2006 WL 3408054
...Evans, Tampa, for Appellees. PER CURIAM. Claimant was injured in a motor vehicle accident while driving a company vehicle home from work on March 2, 2005. After a hearing, the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) denied benefits to claimant based on the going and coming rule, section 440.092(2), Florida Statutes (2005). [1] On appeal, claimant argues that the JCC erred in denying him compensation benefits for the following reasons: (1) the traveling employee exception to the going and coming rule, section 440.092(4), Florida Statutes (2005), precludes application of the going and coming rule on the facts of this case; (2) there is no competent substantial evidence in the record to support the JCC's finding that claimant was operating an employ...
...The JCC also found that the employer's vehicle was available for the exclusive personal use of claimant. The JCC ultimately found that "[t]he claimant was in no different position on 3/2/05 than any other employee driving his own vehicle to or from work, therefore recovery of workers' compensation benefits is barred by F.S. 440.092(2), otherwise known as the going and coming rule." ANALYSIS Claimant's first argument is that the traveling employee exception, section 440.092(4) [3] , should apply in this case to preclude application of the going and coming rule....
...Because the evidence clearly showed that the claimant's trip served both a business and personal purpose or goal, the JCC erred in concluding the contrary. I would therefore reverse as to this issue and remand the case for further proceedings. NOTES [1] Section 440.092(2), Florida Statutes (2005), provides: An injury suffered while going to or coming from work is not an injury arising out of and in the course of employment whether or not the employer provided transportation if such means of transpor...
...ployee, unless the employee was engaged in a special errand or mission for the employer. [2] This evidence was admitted by stipulation of the parties as to what claimant's supervisor would have testified to if he had been present at the hearing. [3] Section 440.092(4), Florida Statutes (2005), provides: An employee who is required to travel in connection with his or her employment who suffers an injury while in travel status shall be eligible for benefits under this chapter only if the injury ar...
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1994 WL 76444
...e course of employment whether or not the employer provided transportation if such means of transportation was available for the exclusive personal use by the employee, unless the employee was engaged in a special errand or mission for the employer. § 440.092(2), Fla....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2008 WL 649066
...The City of Miami appeals an order denying its motion for summary judgment based on worker's compensation immunity. We affirm the order because the undisputed record evidence supports the trial court's finding that the employee was engaged in a recreational activity, unrelated to the work she was hired to perform. *1029 § 440.092(1), Fla....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 26 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 479, 2001 Fla. LEXIS 1402, 2001 WL 776596
...ANALYSIS At issue in the present case is whether Gilbert's accident is compensable under our Workers' Compensation Law. To be compensable, the accident must arise out of or in the course and scope of employment. See §
440.09(1), Fla.Stat. (Supp. 1994). The "going and coming" rule, as codified in section
440.092(2), Florida Statutes (Supp.1994), provides that injuries sustained while going to or coming from work do not arise out of or in the course and scope of employment....
...SHAW, HARDING, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, and LEWIS, JJ., concur. WELLS, C.J., concurs with an opinion. *1061 WELLS, C.J., concurring. I concur in the result in this case. I dissented in Swartz v. McDonald's Corp.,
788 So.2d 937 (Fla.2001), which should have had the same result as this case. NOTES [1] Section
440.092(2) provides: An injury suffered while going to or coming from work is not an injury arising out of and in the course of employment whether or not the employer provided transportation if such means of transportation was available for the exclusive personal use by the employee, unless the employee was engaged in a special errand or mission for the employer. §
440.092(2), Fla....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1992 WL 353349
...ustained by claimant, Rosalie Savage, was compensable. The E/C assert that the JCC erred in finding that claimant's injury while participating in a basketball game was a result of an incident of her employment and, therefore, compensable pursuant to section 440.092(1), Florida Statutes (Supp....
...The teachers were required to participate in the game, either as a spectator or a player. No benefit or detriment resulted from a teacher's decision to play or to act as a spectator. The claimant's claim for benefits to cover the injury sustained in the faculty basketball game was denied by the E/C pursuant to section 440.092(1), Florida Statutes, on the grounds that the recreational or social activity was not an expressly required incident of employment nor did it produce a benefit to the employer beyond improvement in employee health and morale....
...The JCC found, following a June 7, 1991, hearing, that the claimant's participation was an incident of her employment and, therefore, compensable. The E/C's main argument on appeal is that the JCC erred in finding the accident to be compensable in light of section 440.092(1), Florida Statutes (1991), where there was no proof that playing in the basketball games was expressly required as an incident of employment. Section 440.092(1) was created in 1990 and was in effect on December 21, 1990, the date of the claimant's injury....
...regular incident of her employment. This finding is supported by competent substantial evidence; therefore, the E/C's reliance on the statute to deny benefits was inappropriate. Even if the JCC had found that the facts of this case are controlled by section 440.092(1), there would be record support for finding of both "an expressly required incident of employment" and "a substantial direct benefit to the employer beyond improvement in employee health and morale" as required by the statute....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1993 WL 132632
...The hazard was the yellow painted area, which caused claimant to fall despite the fact that she was wearing tennis shoes. In seeking reversal, the employer and carrier (E/C) contend that the repeal of section 440.26, Florida Statutes (1989), and enactment of sections
440.015 and
440.092(2), Florida Statutes, by chapter 90-201, Laws of Florida, [1] had the effect of abrogating *793 the special hazard rule....
...nd applied in workers' compensation cases. Schafrath, supra at 103 n. 3 (listing principles). The section is entirely lacking in the kind of explicit language necessary to repeal an established rule. Id. at 104. Likewise, appellant's contention that section 440.092(2), Florida Statutes (Supp....
...employer. Additionally, the Legislature hereby declares that disputes concerning the facts in workers' compensation cases are not to be given a broad liberal construction in favor of the employee on the one hand or of the employer on the other hand. Section 440.092, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1990) provides in pertinent part: 440.092 Special requirements for compensability; deviation from employment; subsequent intervening accidents....
CopyPublished | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 12432, 2001 WL 1001248
...In denying compensability, the judge of compensation claims relied on cases holding that an employee who is on a personal mission is outside the scope and course of employment. See Fidelity & Cas. Co. v. Moore,
143 Fla. 103 ,
196 So. 495, 496 (1940); see also §
440.092(3), Fla....
...e course of employment whether or not the employer provided transportation if such means of transportation was available for the exclusive personal use by the employee, unless the employee was engaged in a special errand or mission for the employer. § 440.092(2), Fla....
...had found Mr. Rodriguez’s use of the truck authorized, nothing in the evidence would have supported a finding that any authorized personal use was not exclusive. Nor was Mr. Rodriguez “engaged in a special errand or mission for the employer,” § 440.092(2), Fla....
CopyPublished | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 12366, 2000 WL 1421411
...The claimant appeals a workers’ compensation order by which her claim for benefits was denied upon a finding that the claimant’s injury did not occur in the course and scope of her employment. We conclude that the judge misapplied the go *1206 ing and coming rule as codified in section 440.092(2), Florida Statutes, and that the claimant’s injury did arise out of and occur in the course and scope of her employment, as she was injured while on a special errand or mission for the employer....
...The claimant and her husband thereafter began their return boat trip to the small island, but while they were leaving the harbor the boat crossed a wake from another vessel and the claimant was thrown from her seat and sustained injury. In denying the claim the judge relied on section 440.092(2), which generally indicates ....
CopyPublished | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 11546, 2000 WL 1279205
...The employer contends that claimant's recovery of compensation is barred by the going-and-coming rule, making the determination of compensability by the JCC in error. Finding no reversible error, we affirm. The going-and-coming rule, previously recognized in case law, has been codified in section 440.092(2), Florida Statutes (1997), as follows: GOING OR COMING.An injury suffered while going to or coming from work is not an injury arising out of and in the course of employment whether or not the employer provided transportation if such means of transportation was available for the exclusive personal use by the employee, unless the employee was engaged in a special errand or mission for the employer. Another provision of the statute pertinent to this case is found in section 440.092(4), Florida Statutes (1997): An employee who is required to travel in connection with his or her employment who suffers an injury while in travel status shall be eligible for benefits under this chapter only if the injury arises out o...
CopyPublished | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 17218, 2006 WL 2955996
...McDonald’s Corp.,
788 So.2d 937 (Fla.2001). However, we hold that even if Claimant’s injuries here did not qualify under this general definition, as the JCC found, Claimant’s injuries still fall within a statutory exception and are thus compensable. Section
440.092(3), Florida Statutes (2003), provides that an employee who is injured while deviating from the course and scope of his employment, including leaving the employer’s premises, is eligible for workers’ compensation benefits if the deviation is in response to an emergency and designed to save life or property....
...1st DCA 1983), this court held that if the emergency deviation is designed to save life or property in which the employer has an interest, the injury must be considered one which arises out of and in the course and scope of his employment and should be compensa-ble. However, there is nothing in Gonzalez or in the language of section 440.092(3), Florida Statutes, to suggest that the employer must have an interest in the life or property being saved in order for the injury to be compensable....
...d to save life or property. Because both of these prongs are met here, we reverse the JCC’s order and hold that the accident is com- *261 pensable. Claimant was responding to an emergency, and his response was designed to save property. Nothing in section 440.092(3), Florida Statutes (2003), precludes Claimant from receiving benefits simply because the property he was saving turned out to be his own....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 11529, 1997 WL 634125
...On January 18, 1991, however, the appellees ceased providing benefits to Kitschke because their investigation determined that Kitschke was traveling from home to a work site when he was involved in the automobile accident. They claimed, therefore, that based on section 440.092 Kitschke’s injuries were not suffered during the course of his employment and thus he was not entitled to workers’ compensation benefits....
...he applicable provisions of the 1990 version of the workers' compensation law, see chapter 440, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1990), and the 1989 version of the contribution act, see section
768.31, Florida Statutes (1989), as the bases for our opinion. . Section
440.092(2), styled "Going or Coming,” provides that "[a]n injury suffered while going to or coming from work is not an injury arising out of and in the course of employment whether or not the employer provided transportation if such means o...
CopyPublished | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 17503, 2011 WL 5243303
...Where there are no factual disputes, whether an employee is acting within the course and scope of his employment is a question of law. Sussman v. Fla. E. Coast Props., Inc.,
557 So.2d 74, 76 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (citation omitted). We agree that the "going and coming" provision of section
440.092(2), Florida Statutes (2009), operated to establish, as a matter of law, that Nowlin was not in the course and scope of his employment at the time of the accident....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 11454, 1994 WL 652864
...On July 12, 1991, March injured his shoulder when he lost his balance and fell down a flight of stairs in his home, as a result of the awkward way he had to descend stairs while on crutches. The E/C contends the shoulder injury is not compen-sable under section 440.092(5), Florida Statutes (1991), which provides: SUBSEQUENT INTERVENING ACCIDENTS....
CopyPublished | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1991 WL 75654
5. Even assuming there is authority under Section 440.92(2) to reimburse a Section
440.20(2)(b)1. wash-out
CopyPublished | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 5221, 1998 WL 233373
...The record contains competent, substantial evidence supporting the finding of the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) that the claimant’s attendance at the Magic Kingdom and ride on Splash Mountain was not expressly required as an incident of her employment. See § 440.092(1), Fla....
CopyPublished | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2012 WL 1514439, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 6768
MARSTILLER, J. James Harold Stewart (“Claimant”) appeals a final order of the Judge of Compensation Claims (“JCC”) denying com-pensability of injuries he sustained in a motorcycle accident while driving from his residence to work. Because section 440.092(2), Florida Statutes (2009), provides that an injury suffered while going to or coming from work does not arise out of or occur in the course of employment, and because neither the special errand nor dual purpose exceptions apply, the JCC correctly denied Claimant’s petition for benefits....
..., with help from an assistant funeral director, before proceeding to the memorial service. On his way to the funeral home, he lost control of his motorcycle, fell, and was injured. Codifying what is commonly known as the “going and coming” rule, section 440.092(2) provides: An injury suffered while going to or coming from work is not an injury arising out of and in the course of employment whether or not the employer provided transportation if such means of transportation was available for t...
...of whether he was required to go to the funeral home before heading to the service that day, he had not yet undertaken any business of the employer at the time of the accident. Because Claimant was simply going to work — travel deemed personal by section 440.092(2) — there was no business purpose to his travel. Thus, the dual purpose exception does not apply. The JCC correctly ruled, pursuant to section 440.092(2), that Claimant’s injuries are not compensable....
CopyPublished | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 9970, 2014 WL 2925253
...The question we address is whether Deputy Allen’s injuries are compensable because he was “acting within the course of employment” under section
440.091(1), Florida Statutes, or non-compensable because he was “going to or coming from” work under
440.092(2), Florida Statutes....
...ourse of employment whether or not the employer provided transportation if such means of transportation was available for the exclusive personal use by the employee, unless the employee was engaged in a special errand or mission for the employer.” § 440.092(2), Fla....
...ns, the JCC concluded that Deputy Allen established he was “acting within the course of employment” under section
440.091(1) because he was discharging his primary responsibility at the time of the accident. The employer/carrier argued that that section
440.092(2) applies because it is an exception to and more specific than
440.091(1), but the JCC determined that both sections contain “exceptions to the going and coming rule as it relates to law enforcement officers, and each provides crit...
...e JCC thereby concluded that Deputy Allen’s accident was compensable, which the employer/carrier now appeals. II. The employer-carrier raises three issues, two of which are inter-related and involve the scope and purpose of sections
440.091(1) and
440.092(2); the third involves a claim that Deputy Allen was not a “full time” employee, but competent substantial evidence supports that he was. On the main issues, the employer-carrier asserts that because Deputy Allen was off-duty and on his way to work, section
440.092(2) applies to the exclusion of section
440.091(1). Stated differently, it views section
440.092(2) as precluding a finding of compensability if an officer suffers an injury while going to or coming from work, the only two exceptions being those in
440.092(2) itself, which create a presumption of compensability: if an injury occurs (a) “during the officer’s work period” (i.e., normal working hours) or (b) “while going to or coming from work in an official law enforcement vehicle,” neither of which apply in this case....
...ection
440.091(1) are otherwise met — if an officer is in the process of going to/coming from work, even if interrupted by an event that requires the officer to engage in action required of the officer as part of his official responsibilities. But section
440.092(2) cannot be read to extinguish the intended scope of section
440.091(1), which provides that officers (who otherwise fulfill the other statutory requirements) engaging in their “primary responsibility” are considered acting withi...
...he JCC’s legal conclusion that he was acting within the course of his employment and his accident compensable. That Deputy Allen falls within the criteria for compensability in section
440.091(1) is not inconsistent with the history and purpose of section
440.092(2), • which was adopted in 1990 and stated: Going or coming....
...s the employee was engaged in a special errand or mission for the employer. Ch. 90-201, § 14, Laws of Florida. This “going and coming” provision applied to employment generally and was not limited solely to law enforcement officers. In applying section 440.092(2) in the law enforcement context, however, this Court has consistently construed it as precluding compensability in the generic situation where an officer is involved in an accident in her private vehicle, but argues she was on-call...
...sary to actually issue a citation or take any affirmative action in this regard for the officer to be within the course of his employment as delineated in section
440.091.” Id. at 494 . As the JCC below noted, the caselaw *1154 both from 1990 (pre-section
440.092(2)) and thereafter in the context of law enforcement officers has been to determine whether the status of an off-duty officer, even if in her private vehicle going to/coming from work, can change when the officer observes an event requiring her to carry out her primary responsibility under the statute....
...on that compensability is permissible only under the “going or coming” context when an officer is injured during her “work period” or while “in an official law enforcement vehicle,” an argument that no appellate court has addressed since section
440.092(2) was amended in 2001. But as mentioned earlier, we view the current, post-2001 version of section
440.092(2), as not inconsistent with a finding of compensability in this case under section
440.091(1). The 2001 amendment to section
440.092(2) at issue merely established two situations in which a presumption of compensability arises as exceptions to its general “going or coming” provisions....
CopyPublished | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 10931, 2005 WL 1651168
HAWKES, J. Claimant appeals the order of the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC), which held Claimant’s broken wrist, sustained when playing softball with her supervisor and co-workers while she was “on-call,” was not compensable. We affirm. Section 440.092(1), Florida Statutes (2003), provides that “[rjecreational or social activities are not compensable unless such [ ] activities are an expressly required incident of employment and produce a substantial direct benefit to the employer...
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 1876, 1995 WL 74764
...The employer/carrier appeal a workers’ compensation order in which it was established that the claimant sustained com-pensable injuries while traveling to work in response to the employer’s sudden call. We conclude that the judge properly applied section 440.092, Florida Statutes (1991), and the special errand doctrine as delineated in Eady v....
...In Eady the supreme court addressed the special errand doctrine. Acknowledging that in the absence of special circumstances injuries sustained while traveling to or from the workplace are not ordinarily compensable, the court recognized a special errand exception to this going and coming rule. See also § 440.092(2), Fla.Stat....
...petent substantial evidence. See Tampa Airport Hilton Hotel v. Hawkins,
557 So.2d 953 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). The present record contains- sufficient evidence to support the factual findings upon which compensability was established, in accordance with section
440.092 and the special errand doctrine....
CopyPublished | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 1531, 2009 WL 439247
...e Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) denying a claim for death benefits and funeral expenses. Appellant argues the JCC erred by finding Ellen was not entitled to these benefits because she did not qualify as a “traveling employee” as provided in section 440.092(4), Florida Statutes (2002)....
...Appellant sought payment of death benefits and funeral expenses, asserting Ellen was a traveling employee at the time of her death. The JCC denied the claim, finding, inter alia, Ellen was not in the course and scope of her employment at the time of the accident, and therefore was not a traveling employee pursuant to section
440.092(4), Florida Statutes (2002). II. ANALYSIS This case involves the application of undisputed facts to the law. Such cases are reviewed de novo. See Gilbreth v. Genesis Eldercare,
821 So.2d 1226, 1228 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). A. Traveling Employees Section .
440.092(4), Florida Statutes, concerns traveling employees and, in relevant part, provides: An employee who is required to travel in connection with his or her employment who suffers an injury while in travel status shall be eligible for benefits und...
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida
codified in 3 section
440.092, Florida Statutes (2023). It has also been
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 586, 1995 WL 35666
...Accordingly, claimant decided to stop at the dry cleaner’s and drop off her soiled suit. On her way from the van to the dry cleaner’s, claimant tripped and fell, injuring herself. The judge of compensation claims concluded that whether claimant was entitled to compensation was to be determined by reference to section 440.092(4), Florida Statutes (Supp.1990), which reads: (4) TRAVELING EMPLOYEES....
...ired of her travel status” at the time of the accident, the judge of compensation claims decided that the claim must be denied. The judge of compensation claims correctly concluded that the outcome of the claim had to be determined by reference to section 440.092. However, given the facts of this ease, he erred when he based his decision upon only section 440.092(4), without reference to section 440.092(3), which reads: (3) DEVIATION PROM EMPLOYMENT....
..., including leaving the employer’s premises, is not eligible for benefits unless such deviation is expressly approved by the employer, or unless such deviation or act is in response to an emergency and designed to save life or property. As we read section 440.092, it was the legislature’s intent that, in factual circumstances such as those presented by this ease, whether an employee was “actively engaged in the duties of his employment, ... including] travel necessary to and from the place where such duties are to be performed and other activities reasonably required by the travel status” be determined by reference to section 440.092(3). Because the judge of compensation claims did not interpret the statute in this way, he made no findings applicable to section 440.092(3). Accordingly, we reverse and remand, with directions that the judge of compensation claims make additional findings, regarding section 440.092(3)....
CopyPublished | Supreme Court of Florida | 15 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 656, 1990 Fla. LEXIS 1780, 1990 WL 252106
...Recognizing as compen-sable injuries incurred under such circumstances supports the sound public policy of encouraging employees to undertake humanitarian acts designed to prevent imminent harm to the public. Such policy was recently furthered by the enactment of chapter 90-201, section 14, Laws of Florida (to be codified at section 440.092(3), Florida Statutes (Supp.1990)), which provides that an employee has not deviated from the course of his employment if such deviation is “in response to an emergency and designed to save life or property.” Accordingly, we approv...
CopyPublished | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 21608, 2012 WL 6554561
...In Deturk , this court held that even an automobile accident caused by an identifiable pre-existing condition occurring while the employee is driving in the course and scope of employment, will permit an award of compensability regarding those injuries resulting from the automobile collision.
642 So.2d at 782 . In addition, section
440.092(4), Florida Statutes (2010), provides: “An employee that is required to travel in connection with his or her employment who suffers an injury while in travel status shall be eligible for benefits ......
CopyPublished | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 18810, 2003 WL 22927159
...red off duty away from the employer’s premises and, like those injuries, are usually not work related.” Eady v. Med. Pers. Pool,
377 So.2d 693, 695 (Fla.1979). The principle is commonly known as the “going and coming rule” and is codified in section
440.092(2), Florida Statutes (1999), which provides that an injury suffered while going to or coming from work is not a compensable work related injury “unless the employee was engaged in a special errand or mission for the employer.” The...
...The JCC, in the instant case, found that the table was not work-related paraphernalia, but was of a personal nature for the *518 manager of the company, and therefore, the claimant’s act of carrying the computer table did not serve a sufficient business purpose. However, section 440.092(3) Florida Statutes (1999), provides: An employee who is injured while deviating from the course of employment, including leaving the employer’s premises, is not eligible for benefits unless such deviation is expressly approved by t...
CopyPublished | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 16149, 2000 WL 1819744
...only way this accident could be exempted from the going or coming rule would be if it occurred while the claimant was traveling between two places of employment.” This case involves two statutory provisions in chapter 440. Frist, the case involves section 440.092(2), Florida Statutes (1997), the codification of the going and coming rule: GOING OR COMING....
...uch means of transportation was available for the exclusive personal use by the employee, unless the employee was engaged in a special errand or mission for the employer. Also involved is the codification of the traveling employee’s rule, found in section 440.092(4), Florida Statutes (1997): TRAVELING EMPLOYEES....
...while he or she is actively engaged in the duties of employment. This subsection applies to travel necessarily incident to performance of the employee’s job responsibility but does not include travel to and from work as provided in subsection (2). Section 440.092(4) applies to this case because claimant was regularly required to travel to audit sites in connection with her employment....
CopyPublished | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 10325, 2000 WL 1152519
...ired by his employer. Under these circumstances, claimant’s accident was within the course of his employment and, thus, compensable. ERVIN and WEBSTER, JJ„ concur. . The employer/carrier also defended under the coming and going rule set forth in section 440.092, Florida Statutes, but no issue relating to this portion of the statute is at issue on appeal....
