Summary
In Irving v. Hoyland, 4 Conn. Workers' Comp. Rev. Op. 25, 249 CRD-7-83 (March 4, 1987), this board held that where a visiting nurse's aide was injured while traveling to her home after visiting her last patient, the injury did not arise out of and during the course of her employment.
Summary of this case from Dennis-Hoyle v. Omni Home Health Serv., Inc.Opinion
CASE NO. 249 CRD-7-83
MARCH 4, 1987
The claimant was represented by Gerard S. Spiegel, Esq.
The respondents were represented by Richard T. Stabnick, Esq., Pomeranz, Drayton Stabnick.
This Petition for Review from the July 19, 1983 Finding and Award of the Commissioner at Large acting in the Seventh District was heard August 19, 1984 before a Compensation Review Division panel consisting of the Commission Chairman, John Arcudi, and Commissioners Frank Verrilli and Robin Waller.
FINDING AND AWARD
The Finding and Award of the trial Commissioner is affirmed and adopted as the Finding and Award of this tribunal.
OPINION
Claimant, a nurse aide who performed personal care and homemaking services, was paid $4.00 per day toward her transportation in addition to an hourly wage. She seeks benefits for injuries sustained in an automobile accident which occurred while en route home after working her shift at employer's home.
The appeal presents two issues: (1) did the Commissioner err in denying claimant's August 19, 1983 Motion for Extension of Time to Correct and (2) did he err in ruling that the July 24, 1981 auto accident events were not an injury arising out of and in the course of employment.
Claimant's first appeal issue relates to Administrative Regulation Sec. 31-301-4. This requires a Motion to Correct to be filed within two weeks after the Finding and Award. Here the Finding was issued July 19, 1983. No Motion to Correct was filed. Instead, one month after the Finding claimant filed a motion for more time to file his Motion to Correct. Since the deadline has already passed for the Motion to Correct, we cannot argue with the Commissioner who refused to extend a deadline which had not been met.
More substantive considerations underlie claimant's second appeal issue. Her argument holds that public transportation was not available to the section of Greenwich where respondent lived and that it was necessary to get to and from there by auto especially late at night after 11:00 p.m. or midnight when her shift ended as it did on this date. Under those circumstances transportation, she contends, was an integral part of this employment, and it was for that reason she was given an additional $20.00 per week for that time. Although we agree that transportation was important in the sense that you can't do a job unless you can get back and forth from the job site, that is true of all employment, not just this one. From the facts found it appears all of the nurse aides were given this extra allowance each week regardless of where they lived or what time of day or night their particular shift began or ended. Apparently also on some days claimant came and went from work by taxi so the allowance was not specifically for her own vehicle use nor did it relate to the number of miles she or the other aides had to travel each day.
There is a large number of precedents, some against the claimant's position and some in favor, Swanson v. Latham, 92 Conn. 87 (1917), Sala v. American Sumatra Tobacco Co., 93 Conn. 82 (1918), Orsinie v. Torrance, 96 Conn. 352 (1921), Whitney v. Hazard Lead Works, 105 Conn. 518 (1927), De Rosa v. Levering Garriques, 111 Conn. 655 (1930), D'Addario v. American Automobile Ins. Co., 142 Conn. 251 (1955). We think the Commissioner properly applied these authorities when he found in this instance that the employer did not furnish transportation and that therefore claimant's injury did not arise out of and in the course of the employment.
The decision of the Commissioner is affirmed and the appeal is dismissed.
Commissioners Frank Verrilli and Robin Waller concur.