DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES AND DIVISION OF RISK MANAGEMENT, APPELLANTS,
v.
SUE E. MEADE, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed a workers' compensation award to an employee who slipped on ice while traveling to a doctor's appointment to obtain a note justifying her sick leave. The court held that the injury was not compensable because the doctor's visit was incidental to the employee's personal health needs, not a business errand for the employer.
The court held that the injury was not compensable because the doctor's visit was undertaken for personal health reasons and to satisfy a personal requirement for sick leave approval, not as a substantial business errand for the employer. The principle that special errands for the employer are exceptions to the going-and-coming rule did not apply.
[1] An injury sustained while traveling to a doctor's appointment is not compensable under workers' compensation if the appointment is for personal health reasons and not a d…
[2] The "special errand" exception to the going-and-coming rule for workers' compensation does not apply when the "errand" is not a substantial part of the service performed…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The deputy's finding that claimant's accident "is compensable in that there was a concurrent business purpose for the claimant's visit to her doctor's office" is not supported by the evidence, which shows that claimant's excuse, for not coming to work was based on her personal health and her personal efforts to obtain a doctor's note in order to get approval for more paid sick leave.”
Establishes that the deputy's finding of a concurrent business purpose lacked evidentiary support
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceClaimant began working for the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services in June 1984 and took frequent sick leave due to stress. In November 1…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Special Errand Exception cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This cause is before us on appeal from a workers’ compensation order awarding temporary total disability benefits with interest, temporary partial disability benefits with interest, medical benefits, medical travel, attorney fees, and costs. We reverse.
The issue raised is whether the deputy erred in concluding that claimant’s injury was incidental to employment and therefore compensable.
Claimant began working in Ocala for the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services in June of 1984. Subsequently, claimant began to take sick leave primarily due to stress. Claimant’s supervisor complained to claimant about her absenteeism, and in November of 1984, claimant received a conditional evaluation (probation) which claimant felt was due to her absences.
In January, 1985, claimant had her blood pressure checked. Her blood pressure was high, so she stayed home for two days. When she called in, her supervisor stated claimant would have to provide a doctor’s note before any more sick leave could be approved.
On January 21, 1985, claimant went to get a blood test at Ocala Regional Kidney Center, as part of her doctor’s appointment, and she slipped on ice, fell, and injured her ankle. Claimant testified that she intended to go to work after her doctor’s visit.
The deputy’s finding that claimant’s accident “is compensable in that there was a concurrent business purpose for the claimant’s visit to her doctor’s office” is not supported by the evidence, which shows that claimant’s excuse, for not coming to work was based on her personal health and her personal efforts to obtain a doctor’s note in order to get approval for more paid sick leave.
Inapplicable to the facts before us is the principle that special errands or missions for the employer are exceptions to the rule that injuries suffered while going to or coming from work are not compensable. Here, the “errand” was not a substantial part of the service performed for the employer. Gray v. Dade County School Board, 433 So. 2d 1009 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983).
Clearly distinguishable are cases in which a claimant is injured while en route to a medical facility for treatment related to an industrial accident. See All American Wheel World, Inc. and FAWA Self Insurers Fund v. James M. Gustafson, 499 So. 2d 876 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986).
Accordingly, we reverse and remand for entry of an order consistent with this opinion.
BOOTH, C.J., and MILLS and WENTWORTH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- ALL Am. Wheel World v. Gustafson, 499 So. 2d 876 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- Holsey Gray v. Dade Cnty. Sch. Bd. & Gallagher Bassett Ins. Serv., 433 So. 2d 1009 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)