What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant was driving an employer-provided vehicle equipped as a mobile office and was performing work duties at the time of injury.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This established that the applicant was engaged in employment-related activities at the time of the accident, supporting compensability.
From the decision · page 7Applicant was involved in a serious automobile accident in his company-
provided vehicle on 01/24/2018, Defendant accepted the claim and provided
benefits. Later, applicant was deposed and testified that he was in field in his
company-provided vehicle performing work for Ormco in servicing orthodontist
accounts on 01/24/2018. At some point in the day applicant engaged in a
personal errand by stopping at a car dealership. From there he headed to his
child's school for pick up. While driving between these two locations applicant
was involved the serious vehicle accident and was injured. Based upon this
deposition testimony, the defendant then denied the claim and ceased provision
of benefits to applicant asserting applicant was engaged in strictly personal
errands when the vehicle accident occurred, alleging the various theories set
forth at trial and their petition as to why defendant has no liability to provide
benefits herein.
Applicant was simultaneously engaged in personal errands and work duties, remaining available for work communications.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This supported application of the Dual Purpose Rule, finding the injury compensable despite personal errands.
From the decision · page 8The fact that an actual phone call, text or
email did not come to applicant during the time between travel from the car
dealership and the school did not disconnect the applicant from the concurrent
job duties applicant was simultaneously engaged in the course of employment
which was being available and able to field calls, texts and emails at a moment's
notice from his company vehicle/mobile office utilizing the tools the employer
provided him. This was found to be the employer's expectation and is unique
to just this employer, as they had established this working environment.
Applicant was engaged in work for the employer and was in the course of
employment though traveling between the two personal errand locations.
Applicant was engaged in both activities at the same time. Therefore, the
deviation, if any, during the personal errands was minor and did not take
applicant out of the spectrum of performing work duties that benefitted the
employer and was therefore in the course of employment at the time the vehicle
accident occurred (AOE/COE). Additionally, since applicant was engaged in
Employer allowed personal errands during compensated time and provided tools to perform work duties remotely.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This showed the employer's acceptance of the dual purpose activity, supporting compensability.
From the decision · page 7At trial it was established through the testimony of defense witness Hurst
that the applicant was employed by ORMCO on 01/24/2018 as a senior territory
manager. The applicant's job duties required that he perform sales to existing
accounts with orthodontists and develop new accounts as well with applicant's
territory covering primarily California and Nevada. No fixed office location was
provided for the applicant, but instead the employer provided the following tools
to applicant: a vehicle, cell phone and an email account. The applicant was
expected to respond to any texts or emails through the cell phone/email account
throughout the day.