Court Opinion

ID: 9509401
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 21:45:57.330884+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:07:48.781224
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE HUNT
dissenting.
I dissent. The majority misconstrues both the cases and statutes in determining that the claimant here was not entitled to benefits. In the ordinary course of the going and coming rule, the only obligation that the employee has to the employer is to be at work on time to begin performing the duties required. If the employee is at work and directed to travel somewhere else for the benefit of the employer, then there would be coverage during that trip. Here, claimant was directed by the employer to come to work, and was obligated to commence the travel under the direction of the employer to arrive and do a specific job, as requested by the employer.
Clearly, claimant was under the direction of the employer in this case. I would affirm the Workers’ Compensation Court.
JUSTICE TRIEWEILER concurs in the foregoing dissent.