No Course and Scope of Employment for Claimant who Assisted Third-Party Victim of MVA
The Appeals Panel has reversed the decision and order of a benefit contested case Hearing Officer and rendered a decision that an injured worker was not in the course and scope of his employment when he stopped his vehicle to assist a third party who had been injured in a motor vehicle accident.
In Appeals Panel Decision No. 160953, decided July 20, 2016, the Appeals Panel observed that on the date of the claimed injury, the claimant, a cable installer, had completed his work assignments for the day and was driving his company truck back to the employer’s office to complete paperwork and “clock out” for the day. As the claimant was traveling to the office a motor vehicle accident occurred directly in front of him. Although he was not involved in the accident, the claimant exited his vehicle to assist in removing an unconscious woman from one of the motor vehicles involved in the accident. After the police arrived on the scene, the claimant made a U-turn and proceeded to the office using an alternate route as the road on which he had been travelling was still blocked as a result of the accident. The claimant testified that after he arrived home later in the evening, he noticed minor discomfort in his left knee; however, the next morning his knee was significantly swollen and painful, prompting him to seek medical attention.
The claimant contended that his injury occurred in the course and scope of his employment, relying upon Texas Employers’ Ins. Ass’n v. Thomas, 415 S.W.2d 18 (Tex. Civ. App.—Fort Worth 1967, no writ). The Hearing Officer agreed, issuing a decision and order that found the claimant to be in the course and scope of employment at the time of his injury. The Hearing Officer wrote that in the instant case, as in Thomas, “the conduct subsequent to the accident, including the act of assisting with the accident and resultant emergency stemming therefrom, was a part of clearing the road so [the claimant] could proceed with his [e]mployer’s business.”” The carrier appealed.
The Appeals Panel, reversed the decision and order of the Hearing Officer and rendered a decision that the claimant was not injured while in the course and scope of his employment. The Appeals Panel wrote:
In Thomas, supra, the court held that “[a] servant does not cease to be in the course of his employment merely because he is not actually engaged in doing what is specifically prescribed to him, if in the course of his employment an emergency arises, and, without deserting his employment, he does what he thinks necessary for the purpose of advancing the work in which he is engaged in the interest of his employer.” Id. at 20. Specifically, the court in Thomas found that the claimant’s help in looking for a billfold, at which time he was injured, was “a continuing part of clearing the road so he could proceed with his employer’s business.” We do not agree with the Hearing Officer that Thomas is applicable to the facts of this case. Although an emergency situation did arise, there was no evidence that the claimant was performing any action that he thought was necessary for the purpose of advancing the employer’s interest. On the contrary, the claimant testified that after law enforcement authorities arrived at the accident scene, he made a U-turn and traveled back to the office via an alternate route. His action in assisting the accident victim was not action calculated to clear the road so that he could proceed back to the office and was not necessary for the purpose of advancing the work in which the claimant was engaged in the interest of the employer.
The Appeals Panel’s decision in this case is consistent with several past Appeals Panel decisions such as those found in Appeals Panel Decision Nos. 042167, 960127, and 080372.
FOLIO
