Trial News

The Idaho Supreme Court has affirmed an Idaho Industrial Commission decision that ruled that an employee injured while traveling to work in a company-provided vehicle is entitled to workers’ compensation benefits. The decision clarifies state law on this issue. (Atkinson v. 2M Co., Inc., 2019 WL 347465 (Idaho Jan. 29, 2019)).

Matthew Atkinson was a territorial sales person for 2M Co., a wholesale supplier of water industry products. The company provided him with a company truck that he was required to use when traveling to and from work and on customer service visits. On his way to work one day in March 2017, Atkinson was on the side of the road scraping the truck’s windshield when another vehicle struck him.

That May, Atkinson filed a complaint with the state commission, which found that he was entitled to reasonable medical benefits because he was injured in the course of his employment. The commission determined that the “reasonable” benefits would be the “full invoiced amount of [Atkinson’s] medical bills.” 2M appealed, and the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed.

The state high court noted that although the “going and coming rule” typically denies workers’ comp protections to employees during their commutes, an exception applies here. It cited Hansen v. Estate of Harvey (119 Idaho 333 (Idaho 1991)), which established that when “an employee is injured while going to or coming from work in transportation provided by his employer, he is considered to be within the course of employment. The rationale underlying this rule is that ‘the risks of the employment continue throughout the journey’ and since the employer is in control of those risks by providing the transportation, the employee is considered to be within the course of his employment.”

Focusing on whether Atkinson’s use of the vehicle that 2M provided was mandatory or incidental to his work, the court concluded that 2M extended the course of Atkinson’s employment to the time he spent commuting by requiring Atkinson to drive the truck. This entitled him to workers’ comp benefits for his injuries. This clear standard, the court wrote, provides “ease of application” and supports the policy underlying the state’s workers’ comp act, which is “to be construed liberally in favor of worker’s compensation coverage of claimants.”

“The court’s opinion recognizes the risks that an employer places on its employees when providing them with transportation while travelling to and from work,” said Boise, Idaho, attorney Bradford Eidam, who represented the plaintiff. “This decision provides direct relief to Mr. Atkinson and his family, who have been forced to deal with a mountain of medical bills not paid by the workers’ comp surety. More broadly, however, the court has provided what it characterizes as a ‘bright-line rule’ for these types of cases in the future, which will make it easier for employers and injured workers to determine when coverage exists.”