Court Opinion

ID: 9573094
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:47:44.495963+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:36:51.786739
License: Public Domain

ROSSMAN, J.,
dissenting.
Although I agree that, by definition, claimant’s injury cannot fit within the “consequence of a compensable injury” doctrine, I cannot agree that employer-mandated attendance at an Independent Medical Exam (IME) ‘ ‘bears no relation to the employment unless the condition for which it is sought is ultimately determined to be compensable.” 107 Or App at 227. Accordingly, I dissent.
I can find, and the majority cites, no authority for the unnecessarily broad determination that IME attendance can never be considered within the scope of employment unless the employee’s underlying injury is compensable. Further, the opinion fails to examine whether claimant’s IME-related injury arose out of his employment.
As the author of today’s majority opinion so eloquently pointed out in his dissent in Gwin v. Liberty Northwest Ins. Corp., 105 Or App 171, 175, 803 P2d 1228 (1991), several factors must be considered when determining whether a claimant’s injury is work related:
(1) Was the activity for the benefit of the employer ? Here, it was. Attendance at the IME allowed employer to *228determine whether the claimed injury was valid. See ORS 656.325. For claimant, it was simply one more hoop to jump through in the claims process.
(2) Was the activity contemplated by the employer and employee at the time of hiring or later? We must presume that, at the time of hiring, parties are aware of the possibility that, by statute, attendance at an IME may be required at some point during the employment.
(3) Was the activity an ordinary risk of, and incidental to, the employment? Yes; employer directed claimant to visit a particular doctor in a particular city. An employee is required to attend, if requested to by the employer or insurer. ORS 656.325(l)(a). Claimant was simply responding to employer’s directions.
(4) Was the employee paid for the activity ? No.
(5) Was the activity on the employer’s premises? No.
(6) Was the activity directed by or acquiesced in by the employer? Absolutely; but for the specific directions of employer, claimant would not have been there.
(7) Was the employee on a personal mission of his own? Although the journey to Portland was a personal mission to the extent that claimant was trying to secure compensation for what he believed was a work-related injury, it was primarily an employment-related mission, because claimant was on the road to Portland at the request of employer.
In the light of those questions and answers, I would hold that the relationship between claimant’s injury and his employment is sufficiently close to render the injury compensable. Given employer’s specific directive — a directive that was simply being carried out by claimant — the connection is too strong to ignore. Nonetheless, I would remand for the Board to determine whether claimant, in leaving for Portland late at night and stopping by a friend’s house, turned his journey into such a personal mission as to break the causal link to his employment.