|
No. 136940
| Stacy J. Sazima, |
|
J. Todd Trucks |
Plaintiff-Appellee, |
|
|
| v |
(Appeal from Ct of Appeals) |
|
|
(Workers' Compensation Appellate Commission) |
|
|
| Shepherd Bar & Restaurant and Auto-Owners |
|
Michael D. Smith |
| Insurance Company, |
|
|
| Defendants-Appellants. |
|
|
| __________________________________________ |
|
|
Click to view briefs in Adobe format:
Plaintiff-Appellee's Brief in Opposition to Application for Leave to Appeal>>
Plaintiff-Appellee's Supplemental Brief>>
Defendants-Appellants' Application for Leave to Appeal>>
Defendants-Appellants' Supplemental Brief>>
Background
The worker’s compensation act provides that “An employee going to or from his or her work, while on the premises where the employee’s work is to be performed, and within a reasonable time before and after his or her working hours, is presumed to be in the course of his or her employment. Notwithstanding this presumption, an injury incurred in the pursuit of an activity the major purpose of which is social or recreational is not covered under this act. Any cause of action brought for such an injury is not subject to section 131.” MCL 418.301(3). Regarding this “going and coming” provision, the Michigan Supreme Court has held that “[A]n employee does not suffer an injury that occurred in the course of his employment while traveling to work, when he was injured on a public street, not maintained by the employer, as he was walking from a private parking lot to the worksite.” See Simkins v General Motors (After Remand), 453 Mich 703, 723 (1996).
Stacy Sazima, an employee of the Shepherd Bar & Restaurant, slipped and fell, fracturing her leg, while walking to the restaurant from a public parking space on the street. While the restaurant had a small parking area for its employees, there were often not enough spaces to accommodate all of them. The restaurant asked its employees not to park on the street directly in front of the restaurant, so that restaurant patrons could take those spots. On that morning, Sazima did not check to see if there were spaces in the employee lot, but parked as she usually did across the street from the restaurant.
Sazima filed an application for worker’s compensation benefits, claiming that her injury was incurred in the course of her employment. The magistrate acknowledged the Simkins decision,but said that Sazima’s injury fell under “special benefit,” “dual purpose,” and “excess exposure to a common risk” exceptions to the Simkins rule. Because Sazima left parking spaces available for patrons by parking across the street, her employer derived a special benefit from her activities at the time of the injury, the magistrate found. The magistrate also concluded that Sazima’s travel to the restaurant served a “dual purpose,” combining her employer’s business needs with her personal activity. Here, by directing plaintiff to park somewhere other than in front of the bar/restaurant the employer was obtaining a business benefit from the personal activity of the employee in attempting to get to work. Lastly, the magistrate found, Sazima was exposed to common risks, such as traffic or icy conditions, because her employer directed her not to park in front of the restaurant. Even if this case did not fit under one of the specific exceptions to Simkins, the magistrate said, Sazima was entitled to benefits because of a “unique confluence of factors” showing that her actions were directed by her employer and she was furthering her employer’s interests. The restaurant appealed, but the Workers’ Compensation Appellate Commission affirmed the magistrate’s decision. The Court of Appeals denied the restaurant’s application for leave to appeal. The restaurant and Auto-Owners appeal to the Supreme Court.
Top of Page
|
