 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Carter v. Wal-Mart Stores9/1/2000
pensable. The most recent of these cases is Bear v. Anson Implement Inc., 976 S.W.2d 553 (Mo. App. 1998). In Bear the employee had received a work related injury but had returned to work. On the day of the second injury he was released from work early in order to keep an appointment with his authorized physician. He attended the appointment and then drove home. On the way home he was in an automobile accident. The court determined that the employees' injury from the accident was not compensable. The court acknowledged that the "recognizable trend" supports a finding that the injury arose out of or was incurred in the course of employment. The court, however, was concerned about adhering to the rule of no compensability for driving to and from work. The court acknowledged that an injury on the way to the doctor might be compensable but not when the employee stopped for the appointment on his way home. The court recognized the general rule contained in Larson's Workers' Compensation Law:
Furthermore, we have reviewed the current edition of Larson's and the cases cited in support of its statement that "when an employee suffers additional injuries because of an accident in the course of a journey to a doctor's office occasioned by a compensable injury , the additional injuries are generally held compensable." Larson's, Vol. 1 ยง 13.13 (1997). The facts of the majority of the cases cited for this proposition are for injuries incurred while the employee was traveling en route to the appointment, at the doctor's office, or traveling back to the workplace after the appointment was over. Thus, the causal link between the second accident to the employment was sufficient to find it compensable as arising out of and in course of employment. Bear, Id. at 557 f4.
The court found the employee in Bear to be outside the general rule, however, because the trip to the doctor was on the way home and incidental to the trip home after work. The decision did not preclude coverage under all circumstances as when the injury took place on a trip to the doctor. "A subsequent medical appointment for treatment of a prior work-related injury may fall within the scope and course of employment ... [but not] when injuries [were] received while traveling home from a medical appointment." Id. at 558. Bear does not support the broad contention argued by the appellee.
For the reasons expressed above the decision of the trial judge is reversed. This case is remanded to the Chancery Court of Rutherford County for further proceedings consistent with this decision. Costs are taxed to the appellee.
JUDGMENT
This case is before the Court upon the entire record, including the order of referral to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel, and the Panel's Memorandum Opinion setting forth its findings of fact and conclusions of law, which are incorporated herein by reference.
Whereupon, it appears to the Court that the Memorandum Opinion of the Panel should be accepted and approved; and
It is, therefore, ordered that the Panel's findings of fact and conclusions of law are adopted and affirmed, and the decision of the Panel is made the judgment of the Court.
Costs will be paid by the appellee, for which execution may issue if necessary.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
PER CURIAM
Page 1 2 3 4 Tennessee Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|