THOMAS WILSON, APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED MANUFACTURERS SUPPLIES, INC. AND AIG CLAIM SERVICES, INC., 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.
The court reversed the workers' compensation denial, holding that undisputed facts established the employee was within the course and scope of employment at the time of the accident.
An employee injured on the employer's premises is within the course and scope of employment as a matter of law when undisputed facts so establish.
[1] An employee injured on the employer's premises is within the course and scope of employment as a matter of law when the undisputed facts establish such presence, regardle…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilson was injured in an accident while at his employer's premises. The facts regarding the timing and circumstances of the injury were undisputed.…
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 Workers' Compensation Coverage cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The facts are undisputed in this workers’ compensation case. Those undisputed facts establish as a matter of law that, at the time of the accident, claimant was in the course and scope of his employment. See, e.g., Johns v. State, Dep’t of Health & Rehab. Servs., 485 So. 2d 857, 858 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) (holding that an employee injured on the employer’s premises some 20 to 30 minutes before her normal starting time was within the course and scope of her employment, quoting from 1A Arthur Larson, The Law of Workmen’s Compensation § 21.6 (1985)); Winn Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Akin, 533 So. 2d 829, 830 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988) (on rehearing) (holding that an employee injured on the employer’s premises some 30 minutes before his normal starting time was within the course and scope of his employment, citing Johns with approval); Perez v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., 673 So. 2d 938, 939 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (holding that an employee injured on the employer’s premises after she had clocked out at the end of the day was within the course and scope of her employment, citing Johns and Akin, with approval); Lanham v. Dep’t of Envtl. Prot., 868 So. 2d 561 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (discussing the personal comfort rule). Accordingly, we reverse the order, which reached the contrary result, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
REVERSED and REMANDED, with directions.
ERVIN, WOLF and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Lethie Lanham v. Dep't OF Env't Prot. & Fla. Dep't of Ins. Risk Management/WC Claims, 868 So. 2d 561 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)
- Lizzie M. Johns v. State, 485 So. 2d 857 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- Perez v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., 673 So. 2d 938 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)
- Winn Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Akin, 533 So. 2d 829 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)