ROBERT W. SCHOENFELDER, APPELLANT,
v.
WINN & JORGENSEN, P.A., AND NATIONWIDE INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLEES
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.
An attorney injured while walking to his car to drive to a client deposition sought workers' compensation benefits. The court reversed the workers' compensation order, holding that the injury occurred in the course of employment rather than during the non-compensable commute to work, because traveling to depositions was an essential and regular part of his job duties.
The injury was compensable because it occurred in the course of employment. The going and coming rule did not apply because traveling to depositions was a regular and essential part of Schoenfelder's job duties, and there was no significant break in his employment activity from his home preparation through his departure to the deposition site.
[1] An injury sustained by an employee while traveling to a deposition is compensable under workers' compensation when such travel is an essential part of the employee's job…
[2] The going and coming rule, which bars recovery for injuries occurring during an employee's commute to or from work, does not apply when the travel is an integral part of…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“In reaching our decision, we find no significant break or interruption in Schoenfelder's employment activity beginning with his preparation for taking the deposition and his embarkation to the site of the deposition.”
Establishes the court's key reasoning that the employment activity was continuous and uninterrupted from home preparation through departure.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRobert Schoenfelder, an attorney employed by Winn & Jorgensen, P.A., took a client's case file home on April 17, 1995, to prepare for a physician depo…
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 Going And Coming Rule cases and more on FLexlaw
ERVIN, Judge.
This is an appeal from a workers’ compensation order concluding that the injury appellant, Robert W. Schoenfelder, sustained was not compensable under the going and coming rule,1 which bars recovery for injuries that occur when a claimant is en route to or from work. We conclude that under the facts of this case, Schoenfelder’s injury occurred in the course of his employment, and therefore reverse. Schoenfelder is an attorney who was employed by appellee, Winn & Jorgensen, P.A. Schoenfelder took a client’s case file home the evening of April 17, 1995, to prepare for the deposition of a physician the following morning at 8:30. The parties stipulated that on April 18, Schoenfelder began preparing for the deposition between 7:00 and 7:15 a.m., and that while walking to his car to drive to the scheduled deposition, he was struck by a vehicle. The parties also agreed that it was an essential part of Schoenfelder’s employment to travel to client’s homes, hospitals, courts in different jurisdictions, and various professional offices for physician and expert depositions.
In reaching our decision, we find no significant break or interruption in Schoenfelder’s employment activity beginning with his preparation for taking the deposition and his embarkation to the site of the deposition. This type of trip was a regular part of his employment, and it cannot be equated with an employee’s routine travel to his or her office to begin a workday. Cf. Advanced Diagnostics v. Walsh, 437 So. 2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983) (medical salesman sustained compensable injury while getting into his car to drive from home to a professional meeting, because such trips were a regular and essential part of his job). Hence, the going and coming rule did not apply to preclude compensation.
We find Glasser v. Youth Shop, 54 So. 2d 686 (Fla.1951), distinguishable. There the claimant had completed the work that he had commenced at home after arising from sleep and was injured thereafter while descending the stairs for breakfast before leaving for the store where he worked. In contrast, Sehoen-felder had begun his work at home, was still engaged in his task when he was hurt, and was not on the way to his regular place of employment.
REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
BARFIELD, C.J., and KAHN, J., concur. . Codified at section 440.092(2), Florida Statutes (1995).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Tessan Swartz v. McDONALD'S Corp., 788 So. 2d 937 (Fla. 2001)…The court noted that Swartz was merely performing a “minimal job duty,” and that her trip on the day of the accident was not made pursuant to a request by her employer. Id. In so doing, the court distinguished Schoenfelder v. Winn & Jorgensen, P.A., 704 So. 2d 136 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), in which the court held that the attorney/claimant’s accident was a compen-sable event where he was struck by a vehicle before getting in his car to drive to a deposition. In contrasting the two cases, the court noted the claima…
-
Evans v. Handi-Man Temp. Servs. & Riscorp, 710 So. 2d 132 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)
-
Tessann Swartz v. McDONALD'S Corp. & Corporate Sys., 726 So. 2d 783 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)…ady, 377 So. 2d at 696, compensation will be denied under the going and coming rule where the journey is essentially for personal reasons, as the JCC found in the instant case. Claimant also argues that under Schoenfelder v. Winn & Jorgensen, P.A., 704 So. 2d 136 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), her travel to Orlando was excepted from the going and coming rule and, therefore, was within the course of her employment. We cannot agree. In Schoenfelder, the claimant, an attorney, began preparing for a deposition at home in…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Glasser v. Youth Shop, 54 So.2d 686 (Fla. 1951)
- C.C.W. v. State, 437 So. 2d 778 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)
- Advanced Diagnostics & State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Walsh, 437 So. 2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)