Somoza v. Daniel T Whang OD LLC Erie Ins Exchange, 040621 VAWC, VA00001732701

• Case Date: April 06, 2021
• Court: Virginia

ELIZABETH SOMOZA v. DANIEL T WHANG OD LLC ERIE INS EXCHANGE, Insurance Carrier ERIE INS EXCHANGE, Claim Administrator Jurisdiction Claim No. VA00001732701 Claim Administrator File No. A00002429414 Virginia In The Workers’ Compensation Commission April 6, 2021           Date of Injury: January 18, 2020           Peter M. Baskin, Esquire For the Claimant.           Justin R. Main, Esquire For the Defendants.           REVIEW on the record by Commissioner Marshall, Commissioner Newman, and Commissioner Rapaport at Richmond, Virginia.           OPINION           RAPAPORT Commissioner          The claimant requests review of the Deputy Commissioner’s December 14, 2020 Opinion denying benefits on the finding that her injury did not occur in the course of the employment. We AFFIRM.          I. Material Proceedings          The claimant filed a claim on July 24, 2020 alleging that she sustained a compensable injury by accident to her left hand on January 18, 2020. She sought medical benefits and wage loss benefits. The defendants denied that the injury by accident occurred in the course of the employment.          Deputy Commissioner Munoz conducted an evidentiary hearing on December 10, 2020. The Deputy Commissioner determined that the injury did not occur in the course of the employment. He explained that no exception to the going and coming rule applied and that the injury did not transpire on the employer’s extended premises:

the claimant admitted she was driving her own vehicle when the accident occurred, and the employer did not pay her for any travel time. Although she routinely used the entrance closest to her job in relation to the way she came in to work, she admitted there were two entrances to her place of employment. The record also fails to show she was charged with a job duty or task connected to her employment at the time of the accident. Therefore, we find that none of the above exceptions to the going and coming rule apply to the present facts. This is not the end of our analysis, however.

A claim will not be barred by the going and coming rule if the location where the claimant was injured is considered the extended premises of the employer. See Johnson v. Dept. of Motor Vehicles, JCN VA00000390970 (Mar. 10, 2014). . . . [T]he accident here did not occur on the parking lot. The claimant testified she still had to make a right turn to reach the parking area of the condominium complex. She indicated through photographic evidence that her car skidded on snow while traveling on a driveway which led to the parking lot. Nonetheless, there is no contradiction to the claimant’s testimony that her car was

...