41 Fla. L. Weekly D1495jop of Form
Workers’
compensation — Compensable accidents — Going and coming rule — Exceptions —
Judge of compensation claims did not err in concluding that neither premises
exception nor special hazards exception to going and coming rule applied to
accident in which claimant fell as she stepped onto metal plate that was below
ground level, located in parking garage where claimant parked using a parking
pass provided by employer — Accident occurred off premises; and although it
was undisputed that metal plate was hazard to those exiting garage on foot,
competent evidence supported JCC’s conclusion that hazard in parking garage did
not exist on an access route in close association with claimant’s workplace
premises
compensation — Compensable accidents — Going and coming rule — Exceptions —
Judge of compensation claims did not err in concluding that neither premises
exception nor special hazards exception to going and coming rule applied to
accident in which claimant fell as she stepped onto metal plate that was below
ground level, located in parking garage where claimant parked using a parking
pass provided by employer — Accident occurred off premises; and although it
was undisputed that metal plate was hazard to those exiting garage on foot,
competent evidence supported JCC’s conclusion that hazard in parking garage did
not exist on an access route in close association with claimant’s workplace
premises
DEBORAH EVANS, Appellant, v. HOLLAND & KNIGHT AND SENTRY
INSURANCE, Appellees. 1st District. Case No. 1D15-4080. Opinion filed June 24,
2016. An appeal from an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims. Ellen H.
Lorenzen, Judge. Date of Accident: February 3, 2015. Counsel: Bill McCabe,
Longwood, and John H. Thompson, IV, St. Petersburg, for Appellant. William H.
Rogner, Winter Park, for Appellees.
INSURANCE, Appellees. 1st District. Case No. 1D15-4080. Opinion filed June 24,
2016. An appeal from an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims. Ellen H.
Lorenzen, Judge. Date of Accident: February 3, 2015. Counsel: Bill McCabe,
Longwood, and John H. Thompson, IV, St. Petersburg, for Appellant. William H.
Rogner, Winter Park, for Appellees.
(PER CURIAM.) In this workers’ compensation case, Claimant
argues that her February 3, 2015, accident was compensable upon application of
either of two exceptions to the going and coming rule. Subsection 440.092(2),
Florida Statutes (2014), provides that “[a]n injury suffered while going to or
coming from work is not an injury arising out of and in the course of
employment. . . .” Case law recognizes at least two exceptions to the going and
coming rule, one of which is the premises exception. As this Court has stated:
argues that her February 3, 2015, accident was compensable upon application of
either of two exceptions to the going and coming rule. Subsection 440.092(2),
Florida Statutes (2014), provides that “[a]n injury suffered while going to or
coming from work is not an injury arising out of and in the course of
employment. . . .” Case law recognizes at least two exceptions to the going and
coming rule, one of which is the premises exception. As this Court has stated:
Under
the premises rule, an injury sustained by an employee with fixed hours and
place of work who is injured while going to or coming from work is in the
course of employment if it occurred on the employer’s premises and not if it
occurred off the employer’s premises.
the premises rule, an injury sustained by an employee with fixed hours and
place of work who is injured while going to or coming from work is in the
course of employment if it occurred on the employer’s premises and not if it
occurred off the employer’s premises.
Security Bureau, Inc. v. Alvarez,
654 So. 2d 1024, 1025 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995).
654 So. 2d 1024, 1025 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995).
The other exception to the going and coming rule is the
special hazards exception. In discussing that exception this Court has stated:
special hazards exception. In discussing that exception this Court has stated:
If
an accident is deemed to have occurred off-premises, an employee’s injury is
compensable if it is caused by a special hazard on a normal and customary route
used by the employee as a means of entry to and exit from the employee’s place
of work. See Doctor’s Bus. Serv., Inc. v. Clark, 498 So. 2d 659, 663
(Fla. 1st DCA 1986) (en banc).
an accident is deemed to have occurred off-premises, an employee’s injury is
compensable if it is caused by a special hazard on a normal and customary route
used by the employee as a means of entry to and exit from the employee’s place
of work. See Doctor’s Bus. Serv., Inc. v. Clark, 498 So. 2d 659, 663
(Fla. 1st DCA 1986) (en banc).
Kramer v. Palm Beach Cty., 978 So. 2d 836, 838 (Fla.
1st DCA 2008).
1st DCA 2008).
Here, the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) concluded that
neither exception applied, and we agree. Because competent substantial evidence
supports the JCC’s finding that Claimant’s accident did not occur on the
Employer’s premises, we affirm. As the Court said in Alvarez, “We
conclude that in absence of any evidence of actual domination or control by the
employer over the parking lot and its use, this injury not compensable. . . .” Id.
at 1026.
neither exception applied, and we agree. Because competent substantial evidence
supports the JCC’s finding that Claimant’s accident did not occur on the
Employer’s premises, we affirm. As the Court said in Alvarez, “We
conclude that in absence of any evidence of actual domination or control by the
employer over the parking lot and its use, this injury not compensable. . . .” Id.
at 1026.
Application of the special hazards exception presents a
closer question. As was explained in Toyota of Pensacola v. Maines, 558
So. 2d 1072, 1075 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), there are two components to this
analysis. “One is the presence of a special hazard at a particular off-premises
location, and the second is the close association of the access route with the
work premises.” Id. The JCC found that Claimant’s fall as she stepped
onto a 12″ diameter metal plate that was below ground level, located in
the parking garage where Claimant parked using a parking pass provided her by
her Employer, was a hazard to those exiting the garage on foot. These findings
are not disputed.
closer question. As was explained in Toyota of Pensacola v. Maines, 558
So. 2d 1072, 1075 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), there are two components to this
analysis. “One is the presence of a special hazard at a particular off-premises
location, and the second is the close association of the access route with the
work premises.” Id. The JCC found that Claimant’s fall as she stepped
onto a 12″ diameter metal plate that was below ground level, located in
the parking garage where Claimant parked using a parking pass provided her by
her Employer, was a hazard to those exiting the garage on foot. These findings
are not disputed.
We next examine the second component — whether there was a
close association between the access route and the work premises. After a
review of the evidence before her, the JCC concluded she could not find that
the hazard in the parking garage existed on an access route in close association
with Claimant’s workplace premises. See Naranja Rock Co. v. Dawal Farms,
Inc., 74 So. 2d 282 (Fla. 1954); Petroske v. Worth Ave. Burger Place,
416 So. 2d 856 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). Our review of the record finds competent
support for the JCC’s conclusion.
close association between the access route and the work premises. After a
review of the evidence before her, the JCC concluded she could not find that
the hazard in the parking garage existed on an access route in close association
with Claimant’s workplace premises. See Naranja Rock Co. v. Dawal Farms,
Inc., 74 So. 2d 282 (Fla. 1954); Petroske v. Worth Ave. Burger Place,
416 So. 2d 856 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). Our review of the record finds competent
support for the JCC’s conclusion.
Accordingly, because Claimant’s accident did not qualify
under either exception to the going and coming rule, that rule bars her
recovery.
under either exception to the going and coming rule, that rule bars her
recovery.
AFFIRMED. (MAKAR and BILBREY, JJ., CONCUR, and ROWE, J.,
CONCURS, WITH OPINION.)
CONCURS, WITH OPINION.)
__________________
(ROWE, J., concurring.) I concur with the majority’s
decision to affirm the JCC’s denial of benefits in this case. I write to
further explain why the special hazard exception does not apply to these facts.
decision to affirm the JCC’s denial of benefits in this case. I write to
further explain why the special hazard exception does not apply to these facts.
As part of her employment, Claimant had the option of
receiving a monthly parking stipend or receiving an access pass to a public
parking garage owned by the City of Tampa.1 The Employer did not own, lease,
maintain, or operate the parking garage or any space therein. Claimant chose
the access pass, which merely granted her access to parking on a first-come,
first-served basis. The parking garage was approximately three blocks or a ten-minute
walk from the Employer’s offices. The Employer never instructed its employees
to take a specific route from the parking garage to the offices. On February 3,
2015, Claimant parked on the ramp going into the parking garage. As she was
walking down the ramp, which was designed for use by vehicles and not
pedestrians, Claimant stepped on a uneven plate covered in leaves and dirt that
caused her to fall and fracture her right ankle. As explained in the majority
opinion, the JCC found that this accident did not fall under the special hazard
exception because the location of the hazard lacked a close association with
access into or out of the Employer’s offices.
receiving a monthly parking stipend or receiving an access pass to a public
parking garage owned by the City of Tampa.1 The Employer did not own, lease,
maintain, or operate the parking garage or any space therein. Claimant chose
the access pass, which merely granted her access to parking on a first-come,
first-served basis. The parking garage was approximately three blocks or a ten-minute
walk from the Employer’s offices. The Employer never instructed its employees
to take a specific route from the parking garage to the offices. On February 3,
2015, Claimant parked on the ramp going into the parking garage. As she was
walking down the ramp, which was designed for use by vehicles and not
pedestrians, Claimant stepped on a uneven plate covered in leaves and dirt that
caused her to fall and fracture her right ankle. As explained in the majority
opinion, the JCC found that this accident did not fall under the special hazard
exception because the location of the hazard lacked a close association with
access into or out of the Employer’s offices.
An injury to an employee that occurs at an employer’s office
or an employer-owned parking lot is compensable under the premises rule. See
Ryan v. Boehm, Brown, Rigdon, Seacrest & Fischer, 673 So. 2d 494 (Fla.
1st DCA 1996). An injury that occurs to an employee as a result of a special
hazard while the employee is traveling between two employer premises is also
compensable under the premises rule. See Doctor’s Bus. Servs., Inc. v.
Clark, 498 So. 2d 659 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Jenkins v. Wilson, 397
So. 2d 773 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). Absent travel between two employer premises,
the special hazard exception applies only to a special hazard contiguous to the
employer’s premises when the special hazard must be traversed to gain ingress
and egress to the employer’s premises. See Petroske v. Worth Ave. Burger
Place, 416 So. 2d 856 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Naranja Rock Co. v. Dawal
Farms, 74 So. 2d 282 (Fla. 1954). The question before the JCC, and now this
Court, is whether Claimant’s injury is encompassed within this last category of
cases.
or an employer-owned parking lot is compensable under the premises rule. See
Ryan v. Boehm, Brown, Rigdon, Seacrest & Fischer, 673 So. 2d 494 (Fla.
1st DCA 1996). An injury that occurs to an employee as a result of a special
hazard while the employee is traveling between two employer premises is also
compensable under the premises rule. See Doctor’s Bus. Servs., Inc. v.
Clark, 498 So. 2d 659 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Jenkins v. Wilson, 397
So. 2d 773 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). Absent travel between two employer premises,
the special hazard exception applies only to a special hazard contiguous to the
employer’s premises when the special hazard must be traversed to gain ingress
and egress to the employer’s premises. See Petroske v. Worth Ave. Burger
Place, 416 So. 2d 856 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Naranja Rock Co. v. Dawal
Farms, 74 So. 2d 282 (Fla. 1954). The question before the JCC, and now this
Court, is whether Claimant’s injury is encompassed within this last category of
cases.
As applicable to these facts, the special hazard exception
provides: “Where there is a special hazard on a normal route used by an
employee as a means of entry to and exit from his place of work, the
hazards of that route under appropriate circumstances become the hazards of the
employment.” Naranja Rock Co, 74 So. 2d at 286 (emphasis added). To
establish that an accident occurred as a result of a special hazard, the
employee must show: “(1) the presence of a special hazard at a particular
off-site location, and (2) close association of the access route to the work
premises.” Kramer v. Palm Beach Cty., 978 So. 2d 836, 838 (Fla. 1st DCA
2008). In this case, the JCC correctly found that Claimant failed to establish
the second prong of this exception.
provides: “Where there is a special hazard on a normal route used by an
employee as a means of entry to and exit from his place of work, the
hazards of that route under appropriate circumstances become the hazards of the
employment.” Naranja Rock Co, 74 So. 2d at 286 (emphasis added). To
establish that an accident occurred as a result of a special hazard, the
employee must show: “(1) the presence of a special hazard at a particular
off-site location, and (2) close association of the access route to the work
premises.” Kramer v. Palm Beach Cty., 978 So. 2d 836, 838 (Fla. 1st DCA
2008). In this case, the JCC correctly found that Claimant failed to establish
the second prong of this exception.
The special hazard exception applies only “when a court has
satisfied itself that there is a distinct ‘arising out of’ or causal connection
between the conditions under which claimant must approach and leave the
premises and the occurrence of the injury . . . .” Maas Bros. v. Peo,
498 So. 2d 657, 659 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) (emphasis added). Moreover, the
applicability of the special hazard doctrine is controlled by whether “the
special hazard existed on an access route serving primarily to provide entry
and exit to the place of employment.” Petroske, 416 So. 2d at 858
(emphasis added). Therefore, the focus of the exception is whether there is a
special hazard closely associated with an entrance or exit to an employer’s
premises.
satisfied itself that there is a distinct ‘arising out of’ or causal connection
between the conditions under which claimant must approach and leave the
premises and the occurrence of the injury . . . .” Maas Bros. v. Peo,
498 So. 2d 657, 659 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) (emphasis added). Moreover, the
applicability of the special hazard doctrine is controlled by whether “the
special hazard existed on an access route serving primarily to provide entry
and exit to the place of employment.” Petroske, 416 So. 2d at 858
(emphasis added). Therefore, the focus of the exception is whether there is a
special hazard closely associated with an entrance or exit to an employer’s
premises.
A review of the cases applying the special hazard exception
demonstrates that the close association requirement has not been extended
beyond conditions located in close proximity to the entry and exit of the place
of employment. In Petroske, a pothole in the driveway abutting the
employer’s place of business and near the rear entrance of the building was
held to be a special hazard. Id. at 857. In Maas Brothers,
the special hazard — a chalk line that caused an employee to trip and fall —
was located in a parking lot that was next to the employer’s business. 498 So.
2d at 658. In Toyota of Pensacola v. Maines, 558 So. 2d 1072, 1073 (Fla.
1st DCA 1990), the employee was injured on a particularly dangerous stretch of
highway in front of his place of employment. Because this stretch of highway
was “practically contiguous” to his place of employment, we found that his
accident was compensable under the special hazard exception. Id. at
1076.
demonstrates that the close association requirement has not been extended
beyond conditions located in close proximity to the entry and exit of the place
of employment. In Petroske, a pothole in the driveway abutting the
employer’s place of business and near the rear entrance of the building was
held to be a special hazard. Id. at 857. In Maas Brothers,
the special hazard — a chalk line that caused an employee to trip and fall —
was located in a parking lot that was next to the employer’s business. 498 So.
2d at 658. In Toyota of Pensacola v. Maines, 558 So. 2d 1072, 1073 (Fla.
1st DCA 1990), the employee was injured on a particularly dangerous stretch of
highway in front of his place of employment. Because this stretch of highway
was “practically contiguous” to his place of employment, we found that his
accident was compensable under the special hazard exception. Id. at
1076.
This same close association between the entry to and exit
from the employer’s premises was also present in our decision in Kramer.
There, the employee was injured when he tripped over a pile of debris that was
in the path between a nearby shopping center where he parked and his place of
employment. 978 So. 2d at 838. Although the shopping center was not the
employee’s designated parking area, the majority of the employees parked in
that area, and this Court considered the path from the shopping center to be
the usual means of access to the employer’s offices. Id. at 839.
from the employer’s premises was also present in our decision in Kramer.
There, the employee was injured when he tripped over a pile of debris that was
in the path between a nearby shopping center where he parked and his place of
employment. 978 So. 2d at 838. Although the shopping center was not the
employee’s designated parking area, the majority of the employees parked in
that area, and this Court considered the path from the shopping center to be
the usual means of access to the employer’s offices. Id. at 839.
Here, the hazard, an uneven plate, was located on a route
that primarily provided entry to and exit from the parking garage, not entry to
and exit from Claimant’s place of employment. Furthermore, the hazard was at a
location that was a ten-minute walk from the Employer’s offices. Because the
special hazard was not located on an access route serving primarily to provide
entry and exit to the Employer’s offices, the JCC properly found that
Claimant’s injury was not compensable. Extending the special hazard exception
to these facts is simply more than the law will allow.
that primarily provided entry to and exit from the parking garage, not entry to
and exit from Claimant’s place of employment. Furthermore, the hazard was at a
location that was a ten-minute walk from the Employer’s offices. Because the
special hazard was not located on an access route serving primarily to provide
entry and exit to the Employer’s offices, the JCC properly found that
Claimant’s injury was not compensable. Extending the special hazard exception
to these facts is simply more than the law will allow.
__________________
1A representative of the Employer
testified that Claimant had the option to receive a monthly parking stipend,
instead of the public garage access pass, which she could have used to pay for
parking at any location of her choice. The fact that Claimant denies knowledge
of this option is of no import to this opinion.
testified that Claimant had the option to receive a monthly parking stipend,
instead of the public garage access pass, which she could have used to pay for
parking at any location of her choice. The fact that Claimant denies knowledge
of this option is of no import to this opinion.
* *
*
*