 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Nelsen v. Arrow Distributing9/7/2004
(not designated for permanent publication)
Affirmed.
I. INTRODUCTION
Andrew C. Nelsen appeals from an order of the Workers' Compensation Court review panel which affirmed an order of the trial court dismissing Nelsen's petition for compensation. Nelsen's assertions on appeal concern the trial court's conclusions that Nelsen was going home from work at the time of the automobile accident which resulted in his injuries and that certain exceptions to the going to or coming from work rule were not applicable. We find that the compensation court's findings in this regard were not clearly wrong, and accordingly, we affirm.
II. BACKGROUND
Nelsen is the chief executive officer of two companies, A.C. Nelsen Enterprises (A.C. Nelsen) and Arrow Distributing, Inc. (Arrow). A.C. Nelsen owns 100 percent of the stock of Arrow, and Nelsen personally owns 51 percent of the stock of A.C. Nelsen. A.C. Nelsen is a retail seller of recreational vehicles. Arrow is a wholesale distributor for the manufactured housing and recreational vehicle industry, distributing parts and accessories. Nelsen testified at trial that A.C. Nelsen and Arrow are separate and distinct business enterprises, that their buildings are adjacent to each other in Omaha, Nebraska, and that he has an office in each building. At the time relevant to this case, Nelsen spent approximately half of his workday at each business.
A.C. Nelsen has provided Nelsen with a vehicle to drive since 1974. Nelsen testified that it was cheaper for A.C. Nelsen to provide and insure the vehicle than for Arrow to provide it and that having A.C. Nelsen provide the vehicle was also a matter of attempting to balance expenses between the two businesses.
On September 22, 2000, at approximately 6:15 p.m., Nelsen began to travel home from work at A.C. Nelsen and Arrow. Nelsen planned to leave the following morning for a 4-day business conference in Orlando, Florida, where he was going to spend an additional 2 days doing work for Arrow. On the evening of September 22, Nelsen planned to take his dog to the kennel, pick up laundry, and then go home for a social dinner. Nelsen also planned to load some software for A.C. Nelsen on his laptop computer at home and return to his workplace later that evening. Nelsen testified that he often used his laptop at home in association with his work for Arrow. On his trip home, Nelsen was involved in an automobile accident which rendered him a quadriplegic.
On February 12, 2002, Nelsen filed a petition in the Workers' Compensation Court seeking compensation benefits from Arrow. Nelsen alleged that the accident occurred in the course and scope of his employment for Arrow and that he was permanently totally disabled as a result of the accident. Nelsen testified at trial that A.C. Nelsen did not cover him for workers' compensation benefits at the time of the accident.
On March 19, 2003, the compensation court entered an order dismissing Nelsen's petition. The compensation court found that A.C. Nelsen and Arrow were separate business entities; that A.C. Nelsen, and not Arrow, provided Nelsen with the vehicle; and that the accident occurred as Nelsen was coming home from work. The court further found that Nelsen's work at home was a matter of personal convenience and that it did not make injuries sustained during Nelsen's commute to and from work compensable. The court further refused to apply an exception to the going to and coming from work rule for employer-supplied transportation because the vehicle was not supplied by Arrow.
On October 1, 2003, the review panel entered an order affirming the order of the trial court. The revi
Page 1 2 3 4 Nebraska Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|