Martinez v. Stoller

6 Citing cases

  1. Livering v. Richardson's Restaurant

    374 Md. 566 (Md. 2003)   Cited 33 times
    Determining that the injury, which occurred while employee checked her work schedule on her own time during her day off, was compensable because "[c]hecking her schedule was . . . incident to her employment, and her injury resulted because of her employment."

    Many states agree that injuries incurred while collecting wages at a place of employment may arise out of and in the course of employment. See, e.g., Crane Co. v. Indus. Comm., 306 Ill. 56, 137 N.E. 437, 438-39 (1922) ; Dunlap v. Clinton Valley Ctr., 169 Mich. App. 354, 425 N.W.2d 553, 554 (Mich.Ct.App. 1988); Elmer E. Stockman, Jr., Constr. Co. v. Indus. Comm., 463 S.W.2d 610, 613 (Mo.Ct.App. 1971) ; Martinez v. Stoller, 96 N.M. 571, 632 P.2d 1209, 1210 (N.M.Ct.App. 1981); Parrott v. Indus. Comm. of Ohio, 145 Ohio St. 66, 60 N.E.2d 660, 663 (Ohio 1945); St. Anthony Hospital v. James, 889 P.2d 1279, 1281 (Okla.Ct.App. 1994); Hoffman v. Workers' Comp. Appeal Bd., 559 Pa. 655, 741 A.2d 1286, 1288 (Pa. 1999); Texas Gen. Indem. Co. v. Luce, 491 S.W.2d 767, 768 (Tex.Civ.App. 1973). In Nails v. Market Tire Co., 29 Md. App. 154, 347 A.2d 564 (1975), a claimant was terminated from his position as head mechanic.

  2. Hoffman v. W.C.A.B

    741 A.2d 1286 (Pa. 1999)   Cited 19 times
    Explaining that the Act is to be liberally construed to effectuate its humanitarian purposes, with borderline interpretations being resolved in favor of the claimant

    Our decision in this regard is consistent with the law of several other jurisdictions. See generally St. Anthony Hosp. v. James, 889 P.2d 1279 (Okla.Ct.App. 1994) (finding that, where an employee is injured on the employer's premises while retrieving her pay, the injury arises out of the employment relationship and is compensable); Dunlap v. Clinton Valley Center, 425 N.W.2d 553, 554 (Mich.App. 1988); Martinez v. Stroller, 632 P.2d 1209, 1210 (N.M.App. 1981). But see McCoy v. Texas Employers Ins. Ass'n, 791 S.W.2d 347 (Tex.Civ.App. 1990).

  3. HIRSCHLE v. MABE

    2009 Ohio 1949 (Ohio Ct. App. 2009)

    Most that have, found that such an injury is received within the scope of employment. See, generally, Dunlap v. Clinton Valley Center (1988), 169 Mich.App. 354, 425 N.W.2d 553 (finding an employee within the course of employment who was injured on employer's premises after returning solely to pick up her paycheck); Martinez v. Stoller (N.M.App. 1981), 96 N.M. 571, 632 P.2d 1209; St. Anthony Hosp. v. James, 889 P.2d 1279, 1994 OK Civ.App. 176 (finding an injury compensable that occurred on employer's premises after retrieving paycheck). {¶ 32} Pennsylvania also sees such injuries as being received in the course of an employee's employment and arising out of it.

  4. Taylor v. Van Winkle's Iga Farmer's Market

    122 N.M. 486 (N.M. Ct. App. 1996)   Cited 50 times
    Holding that district court did not err in determining it had jurisdiction over worker's tort action; default judgment not void for lack of subject matter jurisdiction

    Almost a year later, on September 15, 1995, Defendant moved to set aside the default judgment under NMRA 1-060(B)(1) and (4). With respect to NMRA 1-060(B)(1), Defendant argued that its failure to answer was due to excusable neglect and that it had a meritorious defense, which was that Plaintiff's injury was sustained in the course and scope of her employment, see Martinez v. Stoller, 96 N.M. 571, 632 P.2d 1209 (Ct.App. 1981), and therefore the action was barred by the exclusivity provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act. See NMSA 1978, § 52-1-9 (Repl.Pamp.

  5. St. Anthony Hosp. v. James

    889 P.2d 1279 (Okla. Civ. App. 1994)   Cited 7 times
    Finding an injury compensable under Oklahoma's workers' compensation scheme where employee was injured while off duty

    See, L.E.L. Construction v. Goode and Crested Butte Metropolitan District, 849 P.2d 876, 40 Soc.Sec.Rep. Ser. 621 (Colo. App. 1992), employee wanted check early for vacation, reversed on issue of social security offset by L.E.L. Const. v. Goode, 867 P.2d 875 (Colo., 1994); Dunlap v. Clinton Valley Center, 169 Mich. App. 354, 425 N.W.2d 553 (Mich. App. 1988), coverage is provided by the act when worker is at his place of employment to pick up his check because being paid for work is part of worker's duties; Martinez v. Stoller, 96 N.M. 571, 632 P.2d 1209 (N.M.App. 1981), employee, on his day off, coming to employer's premises by custom or requirement to be paid, is injured in the course of employment; M-K Rivers v. Schleifman, 599 P.2d 132 (Alaska 1979), traveling from work site to cash check incidental to employment and is covered. Cases denying coverage under the act include: Toyota of Pensacola v. Maines, 558 So.2d 1072 (Fl.

  6. Dunlap v. Clinton Valley Ctr.

    169 Mich. App. 354 (Mich. Ct. App. 1988)   Cited 8 times
    Finding an employee within the course of employment who was injured on employer's premises after returning solely to pick up her paycheck

    Many states allow benefits where the claimant was injured while coming to his place of employment to pick up his check. See Martinez v Stoller, 96 N.M. 571, 632 P.2d 1209 (1981); Texas General Indemnity Co v Luce, 491 S.W.2d 767 (Tex Civ App, 1973); Singleton v Younger Brothers, Inc, 247 So.2d 273 (La App, 1971); Elmer E Stockman, Jr Construction Co v Industrial Comm, 463 S.W.2d 610 (Mo App, 1971); Parrott v Industrial Comm of Ohio, 145 Ohio St. 66, 60 N.E.2d 660 (1945); Griffin v Acme Coal Co, 161 Pa. Super. 28; 54 A.2d 69 (1947); Consolidated Engineering Co v Feikin, 188 Md. 420; 52 A.2d 913 (1947); Crane Co v Industrial Comm, 306 Ill. 56; 137 N.E. 437 (1922). Accord: 1A Larson, Workmen's Compensation Law, § 26.30, pp 5-301 et seq.