[Cite as Stair v. Mid Ohio Home Health Ltd., 2011-Ohio-2351.]

COURT OF APPEALS 

RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

MARY STAIR 

 Plaintiff-Appellant 

-vsMID OHIO HOME HEALTH LTD 

 Defendant-Appellee 

JUDGES: 

: Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J. 

: Hon. John W. Wise, J. 

: Hon. Julie A. Edwards, J. 

: 

: 

: Case No. 2010-CA-0114 

: 

: 

: O P I N I O N

And 

ADMINISTRATOR, BUREAU OF 

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION 

 Defendant-Appellee 

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Administrative appeal from the Richland 

County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 

09CV1543 

JUDGMENT: Reversed and Remanded 

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: May 13, 2011 

APPEARANCES: 

For Plaintiff-Appellant For Defendant-Appellee 

JESSICA M. BACON ERIC L. WEEDEN 

CHRISTOPHER J. STEFANCIK 2770 East Main Street 

6555 Dea Memorial Parkway Suite 21 

Boston Heights, OH 44236 Columbus, OH 43209 

KEVIN REIS 

Assistant Attorney General 

Workers’ Compensation Section 

150 East Gay Street, 22nd Floor 

Columbus, OH 43215
[Cite as Stair v. Mid Ohio Home Health Ltd., 2011-Ohio-2351.]

Gwin, P.J. 

{¶1} Plaintiff-appellant Mary Stair appeals a summary judgment of the Court of 

Common Pleas of Richland County, Ohio, entered in favor of defendants-appellees Mid 

Ohio Home Health, Ltd. and the Administrator of the Bureau of Workers’ Compensation. 

Appellant assigns a single error to the trial court: 

{¶2} “I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING DEFENDANTAPPELLANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.” 

{¶3} The issue in this case is whether appellant is eligible to participate in the 

Workers’ Compensation Fund after falling in the parking lot in front of her employer’s 

office. Throughout the administrative process and in the trial court, the decision was that 

she was not eligible. We disagree for the reasons that follow. 

{¶4} Appellant customarily began her workday around 6:00 a.m., traveling 

directly from her home to the home of her first client. Each day she performed 

household chores at approximately five clients’ homes. Appellant was paid on an hourly 

basis, including travel time between the clients, and did not have a regularly scheduled 

lunch break. Her workday ended at approximately 5:00 p.m., and on most days she 

returned directly home. She was not reimbursed for mileage. 

{¶5} On certain days, appellant was required to go to Mid Ohio’s office to drop 

off her paper work, signed by the clients to show she had performed the work. 

Sometimes, she would drop off the paperwork on a Friday, but other times, the office 

wanted the paperwork on a Monday. Mid Ohio’s workers were required to pick up their 

paychecks at the office if they lived in Mansfield. Generally, appellant would pick up her 

paycheck in the morning so as to not conflict with the office personnel’s lunch hour. In 
Richland County, Case No. 2010-CA-0114 3 

her deposition appellant deposed sometimes the office personnel would even call and 

ask her when she was coming to get her check. 

{¶6} Mid Ohio leased an office in a strip mall style building with parking in front 

of it for Mid Ohio and patrons of the other businesses in the strip. In her deposition 

appellant testified she was required to park in the front of the building and to use the 

front door. The rear parking area and back door were used by the persons who worked 

in the office. 

{¶7} Mid Ohio gave its employees their assignments either by phone or when 

they came to the office to drop off their paper work or to pick up their checks. Appellant 

testified they often called her to the office so she could get a printout showing the 

client’s location and information about the client’s needs. 

{¶8} December 28th, 2008 was a Friday and payday. Appellant drove to the 

office and parked in the parking lot in front of the strip mall. On the day in question, she 

did not have any paperwork to drop off. Appellant picked up her paycheck and was 

given an additional assignment to work another client into her schedule for the day. 

While leaving the office, she stepped on a patch of ice which, she testified, she had not 

seen or stepped on going into the building. She fell, sliding on her right shoulder into 

the wheel of the car. Although appellant attempted to continue working, it became 

apparent she was injured, and she ceased work and went to the doctor. Eventually she 

was diagnosed with a torn rotator cuff on her right side. 

{¶9} The district hearing officer denied appellant’s request for injury allowance, 

finding her injury was not work-related because her employer did not own or control the 

parking lot in which she was injured. 
Richland County, Case No. 2010-CA-0114 4 

Summary Judgment 

{¶10} Civ. R. 56 states in pertinent part: 

{¶11} “Summary judgment shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, 

depositions, answers to interrogatories, written admissions, affidavits, transcripts of 

evidence, and written stipulations of fact, if any, timely filed in the action, show that 

there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to 

judgment as a matter of law. No evidence or stipulation may be considered except as 

stated in this rule. A summary judgment shall not be rendered unless it appears from 

the evidence or stipulation, and only from the evidence or stipulation, that reasonable 

minds can come to but one conclusion and that conclusion is adverse to the party 

against whom the motion for summary judgment is made, that party being entitled to 

have the evidence or stipulation construed most strongly in the party's favor. A 

summary judgment, interlocutory in character, may be rendered on the issue of liability 

alone although there is a genuine issue as to the amount of damages.”

{¶12} A trial court should not enter a summary judgment if it appears a material 

fact is genuinely disputed, nor if, construing the allegations most favorably towards the 

non-moving party, reasonable minds could draw different conclusions from the 

undisputed facts, Hounshell v. American States Insurance Company (1981), 67 Ohio 

St. 2d 427, 424 N.E.2d 311. The court may not resolve ambiguities in the evidence 

presented, Inland Refuse Transfer Company v. Browning-Ferris Industries of Ohio, Inc. 

(1984), 15 Ohio St. 3d 321, 474 N.E.2d 271. A fact is material if it affects the outcome 

of the case under the applicable substantive law, Russell v. Interim Personnel, Inc.

(1999), 135 Ohio App. 3d 301, 733 N.E.2d 1186. 
Richland County, Case No. 2010-CA-0114 5 

{¶13} When reviewing a trial court’s decision to grant summary judgment, an 

appellate court applies the same standard used by the trial court, Smiddy v. The 

Wedding Party, Inc. (1987), 30 Ohio St. 3d 35, 506 N.E.2d 212. This means we review 

the matter de novo, Doe v. Shaffer, 90 Ohio St.3d 388, 2000-Ohio-186, 738 N.E.2d 

1243. 

{¶14} The party moving for summary judgment bears the initial burden of 

informing the trial court of the basis of the motion and identifying the portions of the 

record which demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of fact on a material element 

of the non-moving party’s claim, Drescher v. Burt (1996), 75 Ohio St. 3d 280, 662 

N.E.2d 264. Once the moving party meets its initial burden, the burden shifts to the 

non-moving party to set forth specific facts demonstrating a genuine issue of material 

fact does exist, Id. The non-moving party may not rest upon the allegations and denials 

in the pleadings, but instead must submit some evidentiary material showing a genuine 

dispute over material facts, Henkle v. Henkle (1991), 75 Ohio App. 3d 732, 600 N.E.2d 

791. 

Workers’ Compensation Law 

{¶15} It is well settled that the Ohio Workers’ Compensation Act does not create 

a general insurance fund for compensating all injuries to workers. Lohnes v. Young

(1963), 175 Ohio St. 291, 194 N.E. 2d 428. A compensable injury is one that has a 

sufficiently strong connection to the injured person’s employment. Bralley v. Daugherty

(1980), 61 Ohio St. 2d 302, 401 N.E. 2d 448. The claimant must show the injury was 

received both in the course of and arising out of the injured employee’s employment. 
Richland County, Case No. 2010-CA-0114 6 

Fisher v. Mayfield (1990), 49 Ohio St. 3d 275, 551 N.E. 2d 1271. However, this rule is to 

be liberally construed in favor of awarding benefits. Id. at 278. 

{¶16} Appellees’ joint motion for summary judgment stated the crux of their 

argument was the applicability of the coming and going rule. In Ruckman v. Cubby 

Drilling, Inc., 81 Ohio St. 3d 117, 1998-Ohio-455, 689 N.E. 2d 917, the Supreme Court 

of Ohio explained the application of the coming and going rule. The court stated “in 

determining whether an employee is fixed-situs employee and therefore within the 

coming-and-going rule, the focus is on whether the employee commences his or her 

substantial employment duties only after arriving at a specific and identifiable workplace 

designated by his employer. That focus remains the same even though the employee 

may be re-assigned to a different workplace monthly, weekly, or even daily. Despite 

periodic relocation of job sites, each particular job site may constitute a fixed place of 

employment. A fixed-situs employee is entitled to Workers’ Compensation benefits for 

injuries occurring while coming and going from or to his place of employment where the 

travel serves a function of the employer’s business and creates a risk that is distinctive 

in nature from quantitatively greater than risks common to the public.” Syllabus by the 

court, paragraphs 1 and 2, citations deleted. 

{¶17} In Cubby, supra, the Supreme Court explained the rationale for the 

coming-and-going rule is that Workers’ Compensation applies only to hazards 

encountered by the employee while in the discharge of the duties of employment, and 

does not cover risks and hazards, such as travel to and from the place of actual 

employment over the streets and highways, if those risks and hazards are similarly 

encountered by the public generally. 
Richland County, Case No. 2010-CA-0114 7 

{¶18} The facts in Cubby are instructive. Two oil riggers were injured in a motor 

vehicle accident while on route to a drilling site. The Supreme Court noted although the 

riggers were regularly required to drive to various sites, they had no duties to perform 

until they reached the drilling site, and their duties ended upon leaving the site. The 

Supreme Court determined even though they travelled a great deal, the riggers had a 

specific work site and the coming-and-going rule applied. The court noted that normally, 

an employee’s commute to a fixed worksite has no meaningful relationship to his 

contract and serves no purpose of the employer’s business. 

{¶19} The Supreme Court also cautioned that although payment for travel is 

commonly considered to be a key factor in determining whether an employee was in the 

course of his or her employment while travelling to a job site, caution must be used in 

applying this as the major factor in a “course of employment” inquiry. 

{¶20} The Supreme Court explained the totality of the circumstances test to 

determine whether there exists sufficient causal connection between the injury and the 

employment for a fixed-situs employee who is subject to the coming and going rule. 

First, courts must analyze various factors: (1) the proximity of the scene of the accident 

to the place of employment; (2) the degree of control the employer had over the scene 

of the accident; and (3) the benefit the employer received from the injured employee’s 

presence at the scene of the accident. Id., citations deleted. This test is applied to 

establish an exception the coming and going rule and does not apply to non-fixed situs 

employees. 

 
Richland County, Case No. 2010-CA-0114 8 

The Motion for Summary Judgment 

{¶21} The trial court’s entry granting summary judgment does not state the basis 

of its decision other than to cite the appellees’ joint memoranda in support of the motion. 

The memorandum in support of the motion alleges that the “coming and going” rule 

applies here to bar appellant’s recovery. The motion alleged appellant’s injury did not 

occur in the course of and arising out of her employment because “walking in a parking 

lot was not a condition of her employment”. Motion for summary judgment at 9. The 

appellees alleged appellant’s injury did not occur in the course of her employment 

because she was not working for a client, but was on what appellees characterized as a 

personal errand. The appellees alleged the ice did not constitute a special hazard 

incidental to her employment other than those to which the general public was exposed. 

The motion also asserted Mid Ohio received no benefit from appellant’s presence in the 

parking lot and she was not in proximity to any client while there. 

{¶22} Appellant responded to the motion for summary judgment by asserting the 

“coming and going” rule did not apply because she was not a “fixed-situs” employee and 

was in the course and scope of her employment when she was injured. Appellant 

argues she was at the office in the course of her employment because the employer 

required her to pick up her check and, often, new assignments. She argued it is 

irrelevant whether Mid Ohio controlled the parking lot because she was in the zone of 

employment when she was injured. 

{¶23} Appellees’ joint reply stated even if appellant is not considered a fixedsitus employee, because she had interrupted her work she must show a causal 

connection between her injury and her employment. Even if she is not a fixed-situs 
Richland County, Case No. 2010-CA-0114 9 

employee, appellees argue, appellant’s employment only requires her to drive to and 

from various clients’ homes, and appellant is not assigned to work in the business 

office. Appellees assert appellant must show proximity to the place of employment, i.e. 

a client’s home. 

“Fixed-Situs” 

{¶24} Applying the Cubby test to the case at bar, we find appellant was not a 

fixed-situs employee. Although her work began when she arrived at the first client’s 

home, she was paid hourly including for all travel between clients, which could 

encompass quite a long distance on any given day. Her day did not end until she left 

the last client’s home. Mid Ohio did not even schedule a lunch break for appellant 

during her work day. On the day of her injury, appellant was not finished with the day’s 

work because she still had several clients to visit after she picked up her check and 

received an additional assignment. She was being paid for her time when she was 

injured. 

{¶25} We find the evidence shows appellant was required to go to Mid Ohio’s 

business office on a regular basis during her work day to submit her paperwork, receive 

information about work assignments, and to pick up her paycheck. Mid Ohio did not 

control the parking lot directly, but its lease provided the owner would maintain the 

driveway and parking lot in a manner consistent with the lessees’ reasonable use. 

Presumably the rent Mid Ohio paid was partly for use of the parking lot and 

maintenance services. This is distinguishable from Cubby, where the accident occurred 

on a public road and was caused by a negligent driver, neither of which was under the 
Richland County, Case No. 2010-CA-0114 10 

employer’s control. Mid Ohio specified what area appellant should park in and which 

door she should use. 

{¶26} Appellees argue appellant had interrupted her work to run a personal 

errand in going to the office, but the evidence in the record can only be construed that 

Mid Ohio required appellant to regularly travel to the business office at certain hours 

and on certain days, which were necessarily between client assignments, and she was 

injured while performing that aspect of her employment. 

{¶27} We conclude as a matter of law appellant was not a “fixed-situs” employee 

and the coming and going rule does not apply. Because she is not a fixed-situs 

employee, the totality of the circumstances exception set out in Cubby does not apply. 

Fisher

{¶28} . In order to prevail on her claim, appellant must produce evidence on both 

prongs of the test articulated in Fisher, supra, that is, she must show her injury arose 

both in the course of and arising out of the scope of her employment. 

{¶29} The first issue is whether appellant’s injury was one “arising out of” her 

employment. This refers to a causal connection between the injury and the employment. 

Fisher, supra, at 277-278, 551 N.E.2d 1271. “Whether there is a sufficient ‘causal 

connection’ between an employee's injury and his employment ... depends on the 

totality of the facts and circumstances surrounding the accident.” Lord v. Daugherty

(1981), 66 Ohio St.2d 441, 423 N.E.2d 96, syllabus by the court. “As such, no one test 

or analysis can be said to apply to each and every factual possibility.” Id. 

{¶30} In Hirschle v. Mabe, Montgomery App. Nos. 22954 and 22975, the Court 

of Appeals for the Second District reviewed a case where an employee was walking 
Richland County, Case No. 2010-CA-0114 11 

back to her car parked in her employer’s parking lot. She had picked up her paycheck 

but was not working that day. She was allowed to pick up her paycheck, but was not 

required to do so. The court of appeals found even if the employee is not in the parking 

lot in the performance of her specific job, causation “remains the analysis even though 

the activity that actually caused her injury was walking to her car. An injury that occurs 

in an employer's parking lot while walking to a vehicle, though incidental to employment, 

still occurs in the course of employment. See Griffin v. Hydra-Matic Division, General 

Motors Corp. (1988), 39 Ohio St.3d 79, 529 N.E.2d 436 (injury suffered after slip and fall 

in parking lot after work is compensable); Marlow v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.

(1967), 10 Ohio St.2d 18, 225 N.E.2d 241 (injury suffered after auto accident in parking 

garage while leaving work is compensable).” Hirschle at paragraph 22. 

{¶31} We find appellant has established the causation prong of Fisher.

{¶32} The second prong of the Fisher test is whether appellant received her 

injury in the course of her employment. Courts have considered this issue with regard 

to the time, place, and circumstances of the accident that caused the injury. Fisher,

supra. However, an injured employee need not be in the actual performance of his 

duties in order for his injury to be in the course of employment. Sebek v. Cleveland 

Graphite Bronze Company (1947), 148 Ohio St. 693, 76 N.E. 2d 892, overruled in part 

on other issues in Johnson v. Industrial Commission, 164 Ohio St. 693, 76 N.E.2d 892. 

The employee must be engaged in a pursuit or undertaking consistent with the contract 

of hire which is related in some logical manner, or is incidental to, his or her 

employment. Id. 
Richland County, Case No. 2010-CA-0114 12 

{¶33} The Hirschle court found a fundamental aspect of the employment 

relationship is the payment and receipt of wages. Hirschle at paragraph 14, citations 

deleted. The court concluded Hirchle’s injury, incurred when she was present solely to 

pick up her check, nontheless arose out of a performance of the employer’s duty and 

her exercise of a right under her employment agreement. 

{¶34} Here, appellant was injured while engaged in specific acts Mid Ohio 

required her to do regularly as part of her employment. She was in the parking lot solely 

at Mid Ohio’s behest. Mid Ohio’s policy indicates it believed it received a benefit in not 

being required to mail the paychecks. 

{¶35} We find the trial court erred as a matter of law in determining appellant 

was not entitled to participate in the Workers’ Compensation Fund for her injuries. 

{¶36} The assignment of error is sustained. 

{¶37} For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of 

Richland County, Ohio, is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the court for further 

proceedings in accord with law and consistent with this opinion. 

By Gwin, P.J., 

Wise, J., and 

Edwards, J., concur 

 

 _________________________________ 

 HON. W. SCOTT GWIN 

 _________________________________ 

 HON. JOHN W. WISE 

 _________________________________ 

 HON. JULIE A. EDWARDS 

WSG:clw 0420 
[Cite as Stair v. Mid Ohio Home Health Ltd., 2011-Ohio-2351.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

MARY STAIR : 

 : 

 Plaintiff-Appellant : 

 : 

 : 

-vs- : JUDGMENT ENTRY 

 : 

MID OHIO HOME HEALTH LTD : 

 : 

 : 

 Defendant-Appellee : CASE NO. 2010-CA-0114 

And 

ADMINISTRATOR, BUREAU OF 

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION 

 Defendant-Appellee 

 For the reasons stated in our accompanying Memorandum-Opinion, the judgment of 

the Court of Common Pleas of Richland County, Ohio, is reversed, and the cause is 

remanded to the court for further proceedings in accord with law and consistent with this 

opinion. Costs to be split between the appellees. 

 _________________________________ 

 HON. W. SCOTT GWIN 

 _________________________________ 

 HON. JOHN W. WISE 

 _________________________________ 

 HON. JULIE A. EDWARDS 

 
[Cite as Stair v. Mid Ohio Home Health Ltd., 2011-Ohio-2351.]