ATEF S. YACOUB, Employee/Appellant,
v.
AMERICAN NAT'L INS. and CNA INS. CO., Employer-Insurer,
and
ST. PAUL FIRE & MARINE INS. CO., Intervenor.
Minnesota Workers Compensation
Workers' Compensation Court of Appeals
January 12, 1999
HEADNOTES
ARISING
OUT OF & IN THE COURSE OF - PROHIBITED ACT. The
employee, whose driver's license had been suspended for
failure to pay fines, was injured in a work-related motor
vehicle accident. Driving after suspension, although in
violation of the employment contract, was not a
"prohibited act" barring workers' compensation
benefits where a direct causal nexus was lacking between the
prohibited conduct and the injury, and the compensation
judge erred in denying benefits on that basis.
Reversed
and remanded.
Determined by Johnson, J., Wilson, J., and Wheeler, C.J.
Compensation Judge: Rolf G. Hagen
OPINION
THOMAS
L. JOHNSON, Judge
The
employee appeals from the compensation judge's denial of
the employee's claim for workers' compensation
benefits based upon a finding that at the time of the motor
vehicle accident in which he was injured, the employee was
engaged in a prohibited course of conduct. We reverse
and remand the case to the compensation judge for further
findings.
BACKGROUND
Atef S.
Yacoub, the employee, was first employed by American National
Insurance, the employer, in 1983 as an insurance
agent. His job involved selling insurance products and
collecting premiums. The employee was later promoted to
sales manager until 1987 when he was transferred by the
employer to another district as an insurance agent. (T.
43, 45.) In 1992, the employee left the employer to work
with Franklin Life Insurance. The employee then went to
work for Bankers Life & Casualty until 1996. (T.
45-47.)
The
employee returned to work for the employer on July 18,
1996. On that date, the employee received and signed a
Job Description & Drug Screen Acknowledgment
Form. (Resp. Ex. 4; T. 124-25.) The exhibit
described certain essential functions of the employee's
job as a home service (insurance) agent for the
employer. One essential function required driving to
homes or places of business of present or potential
customers. Another essential function required an agent
to have access to a properly licensed and insured automobile
and have a current valid driver's license. Finally,
the form required the employee meet the driving standards set
forth in the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the
employer and the union which represented home service
agents. (Resp. Ex. 5; T. 125-126.) The employee
acknowledged receiving the Collective Bargaining Agreement on
July 18, 1996. (T. 126.) This document also
required the employee to maintain, as a condition of
employment, a current driver's license issued by the
state in which he resided. The agreement further
provided that any agent driving while under license
suspension may be subject to immediate
termination. (Resp. Ex. 5.) The employee knew he
had to maintain a current driver's license to maintain
his employment with the employer. (T. 124, 126-27.)
The
employee received speeding tickets on July 31 and September
18, 1996. The employee failed to pay the fines for these
tickets. (T. 103.) On October 30, 1996, the State
of Minnesota, Department of Public Safety...
