Moncus v. Billingsley Logging & American Ins. Co.
366 Ark. 383, 235 S.W.3d 877 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An injury sustained by an employee during travel to a worksite is compensable under workers' compensation if the travel was an integral and necessary part of employment, especially when the employer dictates the travel for the direct purpose of advancing the employer's interests, thereby subordinating the traditional "going and coming" rule.
Facts:
- Tony Moncus was a logger employed by Billingsley Logging, owned by Mitchell Billingsley, operating a wood cutting machine and paid a fixed sum per ton of wood felled.
- Loggers generally traveled directly from their homes to known jobsites to begin work.
- On August 19, 2003, logging was slated to begin on a new tract of land whose whereabouts were known only to Mitchell Billingsley.
- Billingsley instructed all loggers, including Moncus, to assemble at a central location so that they could then follow him in convoy fashion to the new, unknown jobsite, an unusual occurrence happening perhaps four or five times a year.
- Billingsley gave Moncus permission to use his own truck to follow the convoy because Moncus needed to leave work early that day.
- After all the loggers had arrived at the prearranged meeting place that morning, the vehicles left, following Billingsley.
- Before arriving at the jobsite, Tony Moncus was involved in an automobile collision that caused his death.
Procedural Posture:
- Tony Moncus’s representatives filed a claim for workers’ compensation benefits on his behalf.
- An administrative law judge determined that Moncus’s death was not compensable because he was not performing employment services at the time of his death, and denied the claim.
- The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission affirmed and fully adopted the decision of the administrative law judge.
- Moncus's representatives appealed the Commission’s decision to the Arkansas Court of Appeals.
- The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the Commission.
- The appellant (Moncus’s representatives) filed a petition for review of that decision with the Arkansas Supreme Court.
- The Arkansas Supreme Court granted the appellant’s petition for review pursuant to Ark. Sup. Ct. R. l-2(e).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an injury sustained by an employee during travel to a jobsite, while following the express and immediate instructions of the employer due to an unusual circumstance, arise out of and in the course of employment for workers' compensation purposes, even if the employee is not yet performing their primary job duties?
Opinions:
Majority - Betty C. Dickey, Justice
Yes, an injury sustained by an employee during travel to a jobsite, while following the express and immediate instructions of the employer due to an unusual circumstance, does arise out of and in the course of employment for workers' compensation purposes, even if the employee is not yet performing their primary job duties. The Arkansas Supreme Court reversed the Commission's decision, finding that Moncus's death was compensable because he was performing employment services. The Court clarified that an employee performs employment services when doing something generally required by the employer, and the critical test is whether the injury occurred "within the time and space boundaries of employment, when the employee was carrying out the employer’s purpose or advancing the employer’s interest either directly or indirectly." While the "going and coming" rule generally precludes recovery for injuries sustained traveling to or from work, an exception exists where travel from jobsite to jobsite is an integral part of the job itself, as noted in Olsten Kimberly Quality Care v. Pettey. In this case, Moncus had no fixed place of employment and was obliged to travel as indicated by Billingsley. Crucially, Moncus was carrying out the express and immediate instructions of his employer at the time of the accident; the meeting was mandatory, and Billingsley dictated Moncus's route, speed, and order of advance. The employer's purpose was to ensure the logging crew arrived intact and on time to the new, unknown jobsite. The Court held that the "going and coming" rule is subordinate to the preeminent consideration of whether the employee was directly or indirectly advancing the employer's interests, and to the extent it prevents recovery in such situations, it is overruled.
Analysis:
This case significantly redefines the application of the "going and coming" rule in Arkansas workers' compensation law, making it clear that the rule is an analytical tool subordinate to the core inquiry of whether the employee was advancing the employer's interests. By emphasizing express employer instructions and unusual circumstances that directly benefit the employer, the court expanded the scope of compensable travel beyond a strict interpretation of "fixed place of employment" or direct payment for travel time. This ruling provides greater protection for employees whose work involves travel dictated by their employer and suggests that employer control and direct benefit are paramount in determining compensability for injuries sustained en route. Future cases will likely scrutinize the level of employer instruction and the directness of the employer's benefit to determine if travel-related injuries fall within the "course of employment."
