We recently noted that the "going and coming" rule ordinarily precluded recovery for an injury sustained while the employee was going to or returning from his place of employment, because an employee is generally not acting within the course of employment when traveling to and from the workplace. CV's Family Foods v. Caverly, 2009 Ark. App. 114, ___ S.W.3d ___. The ultimate question, however, is whether the injury occurred within the time and space boundaries of the employment, when the employee was carrying out the employer's purpose or advancing the employer's interest directly or indirectly. Id.
Holt v. Newbern, No. CA07-345, slip op. at 4, 2008 WL 30117, at *2 (Ark.App. Apr. 16, 2008) (unpublished). Byrd v. Battle, 2009 Ark. App. 114, at 8, 2009 WL 47129, at *6 (unpublished). (e) Opinion Form. Opinions of the Court of Appeals may be in conventional form or memorandum form.
Gingras correctly argues that simply because she was not on the work premises and had " clocked off" work at the time of her injury does not prevent a finding that she suffered a compensable injury. Texarkana Sch. Dist., 373 Ark. at 377-78, 284 S.W.3d at 61-62 (affirming the Commission's decision that an injury suffered by a janitor while opening a gate as he returned from his lunch break was compensable because he was performing employment services at the time the injury occurred); CV's Family Foods v. Caverly, 2009 Ark.App. 114, 304 S.W.3d 671 (holding that an off-duty night manager who injured himself while walking an employee to her car at night was performing employment services at the time of injury because it benefitted the employer by ensuring the safety of the employee and the premises). However, in the instant case, the Commission found that Gingras, at the time she was attacked, was not performing employment services.