Opinion ID: 2119448
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: STRAUB'S INJURIES on AUGUST 7, 2006, WERE COMPENSABLE

Text: Appellants first argue that Straub's injuries on August 7, 2006, were not compensable injuries because they did not arise out of and in the course of his employment. The record indicates that after Straub's first accident, his orthopedist ordered an MRI to be administered at a Scottsbluff hospital. Straub was not working on the day of the appointment, and he drove from his house to the babysitter's house to drop off his children before driving to the hospital. The second accident occurred on the way to the hospital from the babysitter's house. The trial court cited Kraus v. Jones Automotive, Inc., [4] for the proposition that a trip serving a dual purpose was still compensable under certain circumstances. The dual purpose rule provides: [I]f an employee is injured in an accident while on a trip which serves both a business and a personal purpose, the injuries are compensable as arising out of the course and scope of employment provided the trip involves some service to be performed on the employer's behalf which would have occasioned the trip, even if it had not coincided with the personal journey. [5] In Kraus, the Court of Appeals held that a plaintiff who had been on a business trip from Omaha, Nebraska, to Lincoln, Nebraska, was acting within the course and scope of his employment even though he had embarked on a private errand. The record demonstrated that the plaintiff had driven from Lincoln toward Grand Island, Nebraska, on a personal errand, but had turned around and was returning to Omaha when he was killed in a one-vehicle accident. [6] The trial court also cited Larson's Workers' Compensation Law § 10.07, Accident During Trip to Doctor's Office, [7] which states that an accident occurring on a trip to a doctor's office or a place of testing ordered by the doctor is generally compensable if the original injury was also compensable. The trial court also pointed out that the Workers' Compensation Court routinely orders payment for mileage to and from doctor's visits and testing. We have specifically declined to address this issue in the past. [8] And while some courts have rejected the rule found in Professor Larson's treatise, [9] other courts have allowed workers to recover for injuries sustained on the way to a medical appointment for a compensable injury. [10] We find Taylor v. Centex Construction Co. [11] particularly persuasive in this case. In Taylor, the employee sustained an eye injury in the course of his employment. He was granted leave to go to the doctor. After the doctor's appointment, the employee stopped for lunch and to have the company truck serviced, and he then proceeded to drive back to work. While driving back to his jobsite, the employee was involved in a car accident and was injured. The employer argued that the second injury was not compensable, because it did not arise out of or in the scope of his employment and because he deviated from the most direct route back to work. [12] The Kansas court found that because the workers' compensation statute required employees to undergo medical treatment for work-related injuries, an injury sustained on the way to such medical treatment occurred in the course and scope of his employment. [13] The court also found that there was nothing in the workers' compensation statute that required the employee to take the most direct route between the doctor's office and his place of employment, but only that the route selected be reasonable and practical, and one that would not materially delay the employee's return to work. [14] The Nebraska Workers' Compensation Act, like the statutory scheme in Taylor, provides that if an employee fails to avail himself or herself of medical or surgical treatment, he or she can lose those benefits. [15] We have also allowed compensation for travel to and from necessary medical services in the past. [16] We find that an employee's injury which occurs en route to a required medical appointment that is related to a compensable injury is also compensable, as long as the chosen route is reasonable and practical. Having determined that an injury sustained on the way to a doctor's appointment is compensable, we apply the rule in Kraus [17] and Jacobs v. Consolidated Tel. Co. [18] Under our dual purpose rule, an injury arising out of a trip with both a business and a personal purpose is compensable if the trip was occasioned by a business purpose. We find that an employee who is injured while en route to a medical appointment for a covered injury is acting within the course and scope of his or her employment, as long as the route taken is reasonable and practical. [19] Much like in Kraus, Straub had completed his personal errand of dropping off his children at the babysitter's house and was continuing on the business errand of attending his medical appointment. We therefore find appellants' first assignment of error to be without merit.