Vanasse v. Springfield Printing Corp., 030921 VTWC, 05-21WC

• Case Date: March 09, 2021
• Court: Vermont

Roger Vanasse v. Springfield Printing Corporation Opinion No. 05-21WC Vermont Workers Compensation Decisions State of Vermont Department of Labor March 9, 2021          State File No. MM-60664           Matthew D. Anderson, Esq., for Claimant           Jennifer K. Moore, Esq., for Defendant           Stephen W. Brown, Administrative Law Judge          RULING ON CROSS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT           Michael A. Harrington, Commissioner.          ISSUE PRESENTED:          Did Claimant’s injury occur in the course of his employment with Defendant?          EXHIBITS:          Claimant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (CSUMF)          Claimant’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (CRDSUMF)

Claimant’s Exhibit 1: Affidavit of Roger Vanasse

Claimant’s Exhibit 2: Job Description

Claimant’s Exhibit 3: Summary of Claimant’s Compensation

Claimant’s Exhibit 4: Employee Handbook

Claimant’s Exhibit 5: February 25, 2020 Letter from Claimant’s Counsel to Defendant

         Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (DSUMF)

Defendant’s Exhibit A: Claimant’s Pretrial Disclosures

Defendant’s Exhibit B: Employee Handbook (excerpts)

Defendant’s Exhibit C: Printout from Google Maps

Defendant’s Exhibit D: Printout from Google Maps

Defendant’s Exhibit E: Printout from Google Maps

         BACKGROUND:          The following facts are undisputed:          Claimant’s Employment with Defendant          1. Defendant employs Claimant as a salaried account consultant. Before the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic, Claimant generally performed approximately 15 percent of his work at the office or plant, 35 percent at his home office, and 50 percent on the road visiting existing and prospective clients. (DSUMF 2). Defendant generally expects him to work from approximately 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM, but he sets his own schedule and is not required to check in with the office except for in-office meetings. (DSUMF 3).          2. For his work travel, Claimant drives his own vehicle, a 2015 Honda CR-V, which he purchased at Key Honda in Rutland, Vermont. He takes this vehicle to Key Honda for approximately 80 percent of its maintenance. (DSUMF 4).          3. Defendant provides Claimant with a travel stipend of $450.00 per month and a gas card. Although his gas card is only intended for business use, he is not required to track his miles. (DSUMF 5).          4. Some terms and conditions of Claimant’s employment are outlined in an Employee Handbook dated January 2011, which provides in relevant part as it relates to vehicle maintenance:

Reliable transportation to and from work is important. It is your responsibility to maintain your transportation so it doesn’t interfere with your job. Lack of transportation is not an acceptable excuse for being late or not appearing on a scheduled work day.

(DSUMF 6; Defendant’s Exhibit B, p. 5).          5. Prior to his injury, Claimant was aware that the Employee Handbook provided that it was his duty to maintain his personal vehicle so that it did not interfere with his job and that tardiness or absence due to transportation problems would not be excused. (DSUMF 7). However, Defendant does not control where Claimant obtains maintenance services for his vehicle. (See DSUMF 8).          Claimant’s January 2020 Travel and Injury          6. On January 14, 2020, Claimant had a 10:00 AM business appointment at Global Reserve, LLC in Lebanon, New Hampshire, which is approximately 55.7 miles, or a roughly 90-minute drive,1 from his home in Proctor, Vermont. His route to Global Reserve from his home would have been via Vermont Route 3 South, U.S. 4 Business East, Main Street North, U.S. 4 East, and I-89 South. (See DSUMF 9).          7. Claimant went outside his home that morning at approximately 8:15 AM to start his car. He had planned to let it warm up for about 15 minutes, but when he got to his car in his driveway, he discovered that one of his snow tires was flat. He attempted to change the flat for his spare “doughnut” tire, but he was unfamiliar with the car’s locking hubs and was unable to perform this task. (See DSUMF 10).          8. At some point before 8:30 AM, Claimant called Key Honda. A representative walked him through the process of swapping the tires and told Claimant that if he brought his car in, Key Honda could repair or replace the snow tire. (DSUMF 11).          9. By approximately 8:40 or 8:45, Claimant had installed the spare tire onto his car. He called his client and advised that he would be about half an hour late for his 10:00 AM appointment. (DSUMF 12).          10. Claimant then judged that it would be unsafe and potentially in violation of his employer’s policies for him to...