4.06a. Premises Exception.

• Court: Kansas

Kansas Workers Compensation Settlement Reporter 4.06a. Premises Exception SummariesChapter 44.06a Premises ExceptionSee Also,Rinke v. Bank of America, Docket No. 265,920. (January 2005) August 2004. (Award) Claimant was on the employer's premises and clocked-in at the time of his accident but his shift had not started, he was not being paid and he had not yet begun working. The Board finds the accident arose out of and in the course of employment because his presence at the work site before the start of his shift was required and benefited the employer. Claimant is denied a work disability because permanent restrictions were not proven. Washington v. United Parcel Service, Docket No. 267,164. See Also, Washington v. United Parcel Service, Docket No. 267,164. (August 2004). December 2001. (Award) After claimant had completed her shift, she took her vehicle to the automotive department of her store to be shown how to put deicer in her vehicle. While she was assisting the technician, the vehicle's hood fell hitting the claimant on her head, neck and shoulder. The Board held that the premises exception to the coming and going rule does not apply to these facts. Although claimant was on the employer's premises, she was on a personal errand and had deviated from her usual, direct route home. Therefore, the injuries were not compensable. Reusch vs. Walmart, Docket Nos. 242,917 and 253,396. July 2001 (Order) When benefits are sought from a direct employer, as opposed to a statutory employer, the "premises" referred to in K.S.A. 44-508(f) are the premises owned by the direct employer. Claimant was an employee of Fluor Construction doing work at the Wolf Creek nuclear plant site. Butera vs. Fluor Daniel Construction Corporation, Docket No. 230,588; and Butera vs. Fluor Daniel Construction Corporation and Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation, Docket No. 231,584. April 1999. (Ph) Claimant fell and injured herself after picking up her paycheck at her supervisor's office. At the time of the accident, claimant was not on duty nor was the plant where she worked open for business. However, due to the Christmas holiday and the fact that claimant and other employees were not able to pick up their checks on their last day of employment before the holidays -- since the checks had not yet been cut -- claimant's supervisor decided...