![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]>
Not a Lexis+ subscriber? Try it out for free.
LexisNexis® CLE On-Demand features premium content from partners like American Law Institute Continuing Legal Education and Pozner & Dodd. Choose from a broad listing of topics suited for law firms, corporate legal departments, and government entities. Individual courses and subscriptions available.
Three beautiful children.....Ben, Allison and Chase. They belong to my partner Tim Lengkeek. Tim and his wife Michele make pretty kids. Tim makes even prettier law.....be it in work comp or otherwise.
Today's post is a gift for all the neophyte comp lawyers. Nothing novel, nothing too intense.....when I checked my email after lunch just moments ago, here's what Tim sent to my in-box:
"IAB holds that injuries in parking lots covered under premises rule...no da!"
So why did I include this one?
I did it for all who are still learning, or those who need a refresher on course and scope.....or a few case cites to support their no-brainer arguments..... And a huge shout out to Hearing Officer Joan Schneikart for a lovely little tutorial evidencing her summa cum laud status as a graduate of the Christopher Baum school of prose.
Here are the facts:Claimant was injured on an unpaid one-hour lunch break in the employer's parking lot. He had clocked out for lunch, run an errand, and was involved in a motor vehicle accident after turning onto an access road owned and controlled by his employer, Wal-Mart. He had not yet clocked back in.
For most of us, these facts likely scream "premises rule." But the why and there wherefore along with a concise summary of the law governing this issue is what gives this decision value. And for those of you who are not seasoned practitioners, the fact that the act that precipitated the injury bore no reasonable relation to claimant's work duties is of no consequence. That is not the litmus test. Nor the fact that claimant was not yet back on the clock.
The case is Hermo Rivera v. Wal-Mart, IAB#1381770 (11/7/12).
I promise something sexier later this week. I have a little gem of a case sent me by Jeff Friedman that you will so want to hear about.......:>)
Irreverently yours,Cassandra Roberts
Visit Delaware Detour & Frolic, a law blog by Cassandra Roberts
For more information about LexisNexis products and solutions connect with us through our corporate site.