New York’s workers’ compensation system allows employees to seek compensation for lost wages or medical assistance when they are injured or become ill as a direct result from their job. Injuries that occur on work premises are usually covered but what does the law say about commuting to and from work? Here are some things to keep in mind.
For an injury to be compensable under the New York State Workers Compensation Law/System, it must arise out of and in the course of a worker’s employment. Injuries sustained while commuting to and from work are not typically covered under workers’ compensation law because the inherent risks in traveling cannot be fully attributed to the employer. However, there are various exceptions to this rule. If an employee can establish a reasonable causal relationship between their job and the risk to which they were exposed while commuting, their injuries may be compensable.
Outside Employees
“Outside employees” are people who have no fixed workplace and must travel between different worksites, for example, traveling salespeople, home health aides, on-call employees or any other employees who have no fixed jobsite and travel directly to and between clients’ houses. These workers are covered by workers’ compensation from the time they leave their home until the time they return. In contrast, “inside employees” have a set workplace where they must report, and illness that arises before or after their work duties are not compensable from workers compensation. However, the terms “inside employee” and “outside employee” are not mutually exclusive and an employee can be inside or outside depending on their job circumstances on the day and time of their accident. For example, an employee was considered an “inside employee” when she regularly worked at a single office location but when she was injured while traveling to 24-hour on-call duty, she was deemed an “outside employee” and thus covered by workers’ compensation. Egloff v. OB-GYN Assocs., 245 A.D.2d 965 (1997).
Special Hazard Exception
An accident that occurs in close proximity to an employer’s premises may be compensable because the risks of travel merge with the risks of employment. For the accident to be covered by workers’ compensation, it must satisfy these two conditions: (1) there must be a special hazard present that is not typically shared with the general public and (2) there must be a causal relationship between the employer’s premises and where the accident occurred. For example, this exception was satisfied when an accident occurred on a public highway while turning into a single access point to enter the employer’s premises. Because the employer encouraged use of this highway and the access point was the only way to enter and leave the facility. State Police, Division Of, 2019 NY Wrk. Comp. 2303320.
Employer-Provided Transportation Exception
If an employer’s contract expressly provides an employee with transportation (ex: a company car) and an employee is injured, they may be entitled to compensation. Additionally, if the employer frequently and regularly provides transportation, they may implicitly assume the responsibility of transporting employees to work. For example, when the employer regularly provides transportation for employees because it is beneficial for the employer that his employees arrive to work on time. In Holcomb v. Daily News, 45 N.Y.2d 602 (1978), it was common practice for the employer to pick up employees via truck to bring them to work on time so when an employee was injured during this transportation, his injuries were compensable. Because the employer assumed the duty of transportation, he was also responsible for the risks associated with it. However, in Tip Top Nail Spa, 2019 NY Wrk. Comp. 1834753, the owner only occasionally transported certain employees and neither agreed to provide transportation as an employment arrangement nor transported them with such regularity that the employer assumed the duty and risks of transportation.
Regarding the use of public transportation, employees who have been injured while commuting and using employer-provided transportation passes have generally not been found to be in the course of their employment. Various claimants whose employers provided transportation passes were not contractually bound to use them and their employers did not benefit from their routes of commuting. Rodriguez v. NYC Transit Authority., 161 A.D.3d 1501 (2018) and NYC Transit Authority, 2019 NY Wrk. Comp. G2061395. Precedents suggest that unless an employer contractually requires employees to use the passes to commute to and from work, the employee will not be covered under workers’ compensation. However, generalizations are difficult to establish as facts and circumstances have held much weight in decisions.
Special Errand Exception
The special errand exception applies when employers direct an employee to perform a specific task that is not typically part of the employee’s work duties. The employer must encourage the errand and benefit from it for it to be considered a special errand. By sending an employee out on a special errand, the employer is altering the risks associated with performing the errand. The errand does not necessarily have to include travel but many times does. For example, a claimant suffered a fatal heart attack while shoveling snow at his residence after attempting to go to a required business meeting. His employer directed him to attend this meeting and if not for this order, the claimant’s injuries would not be work-related. Juniam v. A.L. Bazzini Co., 86 A.D.2d 690 (1982).
Dual-Purpose Exception
If an employee’s commute to and from their home is employment-connected, their injuries may be compensable. To meet the dual-purpose test, there must be either a specific work assignment for the employer’s benefit at the end of a homeward trip OR so regular a pattern of work at home that the home achieves the status of a place of employment. Regarding the latter condition, an employee must satisfy three conditions, known as the home office exception: 1) the employee must work at home frequently and regularly, 2) the employee must have work equipment at home, and 3) it must be necessary and beneficial, not just merely personally convenient, for the employee to work at home. Hille v. Gerald Records, 23 N.Y.2d 135 (1968). If an employee is injured and can establish these three conditions, they have a greater chance of gaining workers’ compensation relief.
As employees start returning to workplaces both employees and employers must keep these exceptions in mind when injuries occur while commuting.
Written by intern Dana Chan. This summer internship was part of the ILR Summer Credit Internship Program with Cornell University. Interns conduct research and engage in other tasks for their employer and coordinate with their intern supervisor to develop and write a research paper analyzing their internship work.
