5339 CRB-8-08-4 (2009). King v. State of Connecticut Department of Correction.
Court | Connecticut |
Connecticut Workers Compensation
2009.
5339 CRB-8-08-4 (2009).
King v. State of Connecticut Department of Correction
CASE NO. 5339 CRB-8-08-4 COMPENSATION REVIEW BOARD
WORKERS'
COMPENSATION COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2009LYNWOOD KING CLAIMANT-APPELLEE v. STATE OF CONNECTICUT
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION EMPLOYER SELF-INSURED RESPONDENT-APPELLANT and GAB
ROBINS OF NORTH AMERICA ADMINISTRATOR APPEARANCES: The claimant was represented by Ronald P.
Kowalczyk, Esq., Ronald M. Scherban, P.C., Attorney At Law, 395 Orange Street,
New Haven, CT 06511. The respondent was represented by Lawrence G. Widem, Esq.,
Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, 55 Elm Street, P.O.
Box 120, Hartford, CT 06141-0120. This Petition for Review from the April 15,
2008 Finding and Award of the Commissioner acting for the Eighth District was
heard October 24, 2008 before a Compensation Review Board panel consisting of
the Commission Chairman John A. Mastropietro and Commissioners Ernie R. Walker
and Charles F. Senich. OPINIONJOHN A. MASTROPIETRO,
CHAIRMAN.This appeal concerns whether the claimant's injuries while
operating a state-owned motor vehicle are compensable. The claimant asserts
that at the time of his injury, although he was "off the clock," that he was
performing a task incidental to his employment. The respondent believes that
the ordinary "coming and going" rule applies to this accident. The trial
commissioner found the claimant's arguments persuasive, and on appeal, we
concur. We affirm the Finding and Award and dismiss the appeal. The following facts are relevant to the issues on appeal. The
claimant is employed as a parole officer by the Department of Correction. He
resides in Meriden and on January 18, 2007 was assigned to the respondent's
office at 50 Fitch Street, New Haven. The claimant's job duties are governed by
the NP-4 Bargaining Unit Contract between his labor union and the state.
The claimant testified the NP-4 contract required him to be
available for contact assignment by beeper to perform his duties on a 24-hour
per day, seven-day per week basis except when he was on authorized leave and
that his work hours were normally 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. His duties included
apprehending and arresting parole violators anywhere in the state. To perform
these duties the claimant was issued a firearm, body armor, a state-owned motor
vehicle, handcuffs, chemical agent, a cellular telephone, and a pager. The
claimant testified he was required to drive the state-owned motor vehicle
whenever his employment required him to operate a motor vehicle. He further
testified that he only spent about 35% of his work time in the New Haven
office; and spent the remainder in the field.
The claimant further testified about the obligations he had
regarding the use of his state-owned car. He was forbidden to use his own car
to commute to the office or any other location where he was going to work; and
if he received an emergency call at his home that needed to be responded to, he
was required to drive his state-owned car to that emergency. The state-owned
car was equipped with certain modifications which made it suitable for the
claimant's job: i.e. it was equipped with a safety cage to protect him while
transporting prisoners and with a safe in the trunk in which he stored his
state-issued firearm when not performing his duties. The claimant testified
that personal use of the state-owned motor vehicle was not permitted and that
he was allowed to make only essential stops in it while traveling to or from
work as long as those stops were on his normal commuting route.
The state-owned car was, therefore, parked at the claimant's
residence when he was not at the office. The claimant testified he did not have
to pay commuting expenses when using the state-owned motor vehicle while the
state benefited by enabling him to respond more quickly to emergency calls from
the respondent than he could have if it were necessary to first pick up his
state-owned motor vehicle at another location.
The claimant testified that he was injured and the state-owned
motor vehicle sustained property damage on January 18, 2007 at approximately
6:30 p.m. while on his way...
To continue reading
Request your trial