Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
D was injured when he was attacked on a public sidewalk when he was about 50 feet from the entrance of P, his place of work. The attack occurred after D got off a city bus and on the same path that employees would have used had they parked their car in the company parking lot. The dispute in this instance was the interpretation of a new statute that covered employees for injuries received when an employee was traveling from the parking lot to the work premises, or vice versa, on a direct route. The department examiner denied Ds application for worker's compensation, finding that the injury did not occur on the premises of the employer and did not result from an occurrence on the premises; that at the time of the injury the employee was not performing service growing out of and incidental to his employment and the accident causing injury did not arise out of the employment. D petitioned for review of the examiner's findings and conclusions, the department set aside the examiner's findings without stating reasons and remanded for further hearing. Following a second hearing, the examiner again dismissed D's claim, finding that the claimant had not used P's parking lot and was not proceeding from the parking lot to the bakery when injured. Upon a second appeal to the commission, the examiner's findings were again set aside.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co