Employee injured while shopping for work potluck - and gets comp
December 28, 2009 by Fred HosierPosted in: Injuries, Special Report, Transportation safety, Workers' comp
California’s Supreme Court has refused to reconsider a decision granting workers’ comp benefits to an employee after she was injured while shopping for a work-related potluck.
Yvette Casarez was injured while traveling to a shopping center to buy food and gifts for a holiday party for co-workers to be held at the employer’s office the next day.
Her husband lost control of the truck in which she was a passenger. The truck struck the center divider and rolled over several times.
Her employer supported the potlucks to promote teamwork. Casarez also showed that she was on call for the employer at the time of the crash. For those reasons, a workers’ comp administrative judge concluded she was injured in the course of performing a work-related duty that benefited the employer.
The company, Davita, Inc., appealed the comp award to the full workers’ comp board, a state appeals court and finally to the state supreme court. At every step, the benefits were upheld.
What do you think of the court’s decision? Let us know in the Comments Box below.
Cite: Yvette Casarez v. Davita, Inc., Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board, State of CA, Case No. ADJ278138.
SafetyNewsAlert.com delivers the latest Safety news once a week to the inboxes of over 270,000 Safety professionals.
Click here to sign up and start your FREE subscription to SafetyNewsAlert!
Tags: injured in the course of work, teamwork, Workers' comp
Loading ...
December 28th, 2009 at 4:08 pm
Makes sense to me. In Wisconsin, the result would be the same. She was performing a “work-related duty”
Now, I guess I’m making an assumption here: She was going there with money provided by the employer to purchase these items in her employers name. But just the fact that she was on-call at the time indicates this is legit WC.
December 29th, 2009 at 8:51 am
Just another example of sticking it to the employer.
December 29th, 2009 at 8:56 am
What do I think about the court’s decision? Hhhmmmm… I was recently involved in a discussion about how we make decisions as a society and have learned that these kinds of decisions are becoming more and more prevalent. We live in a gaming and movie society now where decisions are based less on reality and more on fantasy and emotion. We live in a society where decisions aren’t based on what’s right and wrong anymore. If someone is hurt the decision is based on that individuals feelings and everyone wants compensated for getting hurt whether they are at fault or not. Too many times you have someone crying on the stand or painting a sad sad story and it yanks on the heart strings of the decision makers. It clouts their judgment and a decision is made on behalf of the person that ultimately is undeserving of the compensation. A pot-luck is a voluntary dinner provided by the employEEs however, here we don’t know the specifics of the employers involvement without digging into the case. When people are on call their time starts when the phone rings not when they are sitting on their butt waiting for the call. Without digging too deep I don’t feel the employer is responsible for the employees compensation, unless the employer specifically sent her to get the things necessary for the pot-luck. (But then it’s not a pot-luck it’s a company supplied dinner.)
December 29th, 2009 at 8:56 am
I agree with the Court’s decision.
December 29th, 2009 at 9:01 am
Flat out CRAZY! That’s what I think…
Instances such as these are the reason why workplaces in America are becoming the way they are, resulting in unhappy employees. So, what exactly are employers left with, outside of monetary consideration, in which to promote employee morale these days…we apparently can no longer safely have pot lucks and bowling is out too. What next people? Seriously, what next?
December 29th, 2009 at 9:25 am
Davita Inc. showed their employees that team work did not include management to employees by appealing the ruling. What ever good will they may have created by having the pot lucks I’m sure was lost when they failed to support Casarez after her accident.
December 29th, 2009 at 9:29 am
What are the details of the crash ? Who was at fault for that ? It doesn’t appear as though the company had any control over the driver or was at fault in any way for the cause of the accident. I am always on call, 24/7, that doesn’t mean that what ever might happen to me goes back on my company. This one stinks, something needs to change or businesses in this country will continue to suffer financially at the hands of the courts and employees who play the system !
December 29th, 2009 at 9:32 am
I think this is a bit extreme. I don’t believe that Work’s Comp was established for this purpose. The case is a stretch for what the law was intended to do. I pick up items for the office on my way to work, but do so voluntarily. I would never dream of collecting worker’s comp if I was injured doing this. There are to many people out there who really need the benefits who are denied because our courts are so busy awarding frivolous cases.
We need far more than just health care reform. We need common sense reform.
Thanks…
December 29th, 2009 at 10:15 am
I had a wreck while returning to the office after going to the Post Office & bank on company business, I was not injured but did over $9,000.00 damage to my truck, totaled out a brand new car & damaged 2 other vehicles. I honestly don’t know what happened to cause the wreck. The other 3 vehicles were parked so it was definately my fault but I didn’t ask my employer to pay my $500.00 deductable, even though I was “on the clock”. Had I been injured my insurance would have paid for care. Did the woman not have any health insurance?
December 29th, 2009 at 10:17 am
I agree with the Court’s decision. I provided defense testimony for a previous employer on a similar case that occurred a number of years ago; and the decision is consistent with the comments and conclusions of the ALJ who handled that case.
December 29th, 2009 at 10:18 am
I agree with the court ruling. She was sent to purchase items for the employer and she was on call. If she is no longer able to work because of the injuries she received I believe the she deserves compensation.
December 29th, 2009 at 10:21 am
This is why companies fail. The company is not responsible for her husbands actions or the other driver. If she was on company time why was her husband with her. I agree that we don’t know all of the facts. I run places in my car for my company but if I get in a accident I don’t expect them to fix my car or pay my bills. I think this is a stretch also.
December 29th, 2009 at 10:23 am
I guess my take on it is that if you’re injured at work due to your own negliegence an employer doesn’t have to pay workers comp. What caused the crash, wreckless driving, alcohol related? Also like Karl i’m on call 24/7 but if I get hurt out driving around it’s my fault not my companies. Considering this happened in California it’s not too shocking that they got workers compl
December 29th, 2009 at 10:34 am
This is a good article, it shows how management must think far ahead of the curve. Being on call is okay, leaving the office to go to the store as our company does is okay, but were these people going to the store or using it as an excuse to get paid.
In our company we feed the employees lunch every month and I would expect to pay someone worker’s comp if they were hurt driving to the store. But there are conditions, the employee uses a company vehicle meaning they are actually on the clock, and they must follow our safety rules such as putting a seat belt on.
This case doesn’t give enough of the facts to make a decision here but it is California so what would a person expect.
December 29th, 2009 at 10:37 am
Comp. should go back and sue the husband’s insurance company, he was driving.
Nowhere does it say that the employer was paying only that they supported it.
I agree that this is another example of the problems employers face on a regular basis.
This why employers do not want to do anything for their employees and this is sad.
December 29th, 2009 at 10:41 am
Clearly this person was injured while performing a work-related activity, so it is difficult to argue that this is not a compensable injury. The problem I have is that she was injured as the result of decisions and actions of her husband, who was apaprently not an employee or agent of the company. So in my mind there should be an effort to reassign the cost of any medical treatment and rehabilitation back to the husband’s insurance coverage. And yes, I know…there is a whole host of issues around conflicts of interest, fiduciary responsibility, and probably a whole host of other factors.
To me this case is an example of why companies generally have pretty specific rules around involving non-employees (whether family members or not) in the conduct of work activities.
December 29th, 2009 at 10:59 am
This is exactly why companies are fleeing the US. Another case of no good deed goes unpunished. Hard as it may be for some people to believe, not every injury or mishap is the employers fault. Imaging the lawsuits if employers start trying to discipline employees for driving unsafely in personal vehicles because they might be doing something that could be work related. People in general need to start taking responsibility for their actions. Maybe we can sell California to another country…
December 29th, 2009 at 11:00 am
I’m glad this lady didn’t work for me. Great so, she goes to the grocer to pick up some vittles. Why was she not driving? Why was the husband driving? Was the vehicle not insured? Only problem I see here is loyalty to her employer. Put me in her place, I would not have gone after my employer. I feel a small part of my paycheck is compensation for loyalty, something this lady didn’t consider. Now with a W/C claim on her record, I can just hope the next employer does some due diligence before hiring.
December 29th, 2009 at 11:01 am
Totally ridiculous - If this were me it would not even enter my mind to apply for workers comp. We have a society of people that no longer take responsibility for themselves, everything that happens is somebody elses fault. Too many people looking for handouts are making it impossible for comapnies to provide for their employees. The supporters of the decision in the above comments seem to be making up facts - was she “sent” to buy things for the dinner? I did not get that from the story. It said the company supported the dinners - not organized them. Her husband “lost control of the vehicle” - it sounds like the accident was his fault. I can’t even comprehend how this case was ruled in the plaintiffs favor. Hopefully there were a lot more facts than we were given in the story.
December 29th, 2009 at 11:06 am
The Court blew this one. Maybe and I repeat maybe if she was driving the vehicle. Did she leave from home? What were they doing befroe they got into the truck? Too many questions not answered.
December 29th, 2009 at 11:09 am
LIVE AT YOUR OWN RISK. The company should sue her husband for injuring their emplyee.
December 29th, 2009 at 11:12 am
If the company specifically sent her to the store with company money for a company-sponsored event, then I think it should be covered on worker’s comp. Also, it should have been with a company vehicle. But, the fact that the worker’s husband was the driver in a non-company vehicle starts to raise questions in my mind. Without knowing all the facts, it’s impossible to decide whether the courts were right or wrong.
December 29th, 2009 at 11:26 am
I don’t agree with the court on this one, but I also don’t know the whole story and if there was solid facts to back-up her claim then so be it. Based on what I’ve read I think this ruling is ridiculous and unsound. If it were me, I wouldn’t have asked for Worker’s Comp. If it were my company, they most likely would have offered to help with any expenses simply because they felt bad and they like caring for their employees. It seems employers will be less and less caring though with the more and more court decisions like this. She wasn’t driving AND a potluck is a voluntary event UNLESS she was provided with money to purchase some staple items the employer wanted on hand or was to be reimbursed by the company.
December 29th, 2009 at 11:38 am
I’m on the fence about the acceptance of the workers’ compensation claim by the court system. However, if I were the employer in this situation, I would subrogate the costs to the husband (sue him) for the losses based on his negligence in driving the car and losing control. The employer may have lost the workers’ compensation claim, but they should be able to win the subrogation claim and recoup most of their losses.
December 29th, 2009 at 11:44 am
with all the liberals in California its a wonder they didn’t give her the farm, as a manager of a large company, I uesd to do these potlucks on company property and let the employees bring stuff in, with all the sue happy people that are out there, I no longer give my employees the opportunity, I can see why companies no longer want to do bussiness in California, and move to other less liberal states
I think that the court just flat blow it.
December 29th, 2009 at 11:58 am
Couldn’t the WC carrier subrogate against the husband’s auto insurance company? Didn’t he cause the accident?
December 29th, 2009 at 11:59 am
This example serves as a reminder to all of how our system of government has become perverted by a disturbing mutation of a concept that was once known as a Work Ethic. Our society’s core values have become so maligned over the past several decades that the basic idea of hard work resulting in fruitful rewards is now better known as the best players win the game, regardless of the idea of what is fair, honest, or morally acceptable. And this description applies to both sides of the equation of worker and company/business entity.
Sadly, many members of our population seek out opportunities not in traditional forums such as the notion of how can I make something better or by developing innovative techniques to enhance products, services, or daily experiences, but instead look for ways to exploit an already overzealously structured system where cases such as this are even considered as debatable.
While we in America toil over whether or not this woman is entitled to something, other nations around the world are educating their children 30% more than we do ours, are caring for their sick with greater efficacy and a LOT more cost effectively, are producing high quality goods and services that are exported here at a significant profit.
A system where the cost of anything, be it goods, labor, or services, exceeds that which it can be sold for is a system destined for obsolescence.
The collective spirit of America has become indifferent, lethargic, fat, lazy, and unwilling to participate in their own destiny. As long as we can contol it with a remote or a mouse, it is kept at a safe distance and there really is no need to do anything about it.
Land of the Free is all about “What’s in it for me?”
Good luck to this woman and to her former employer. They will both need it.
December 29th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
Did the company have company vehicles? If so she should have been driving one of them, not her husband driving her in their personal truck. Did the husband get anything for the wreck? Who was at fault for the accident the husband or the other driver?
There are a hundred more questions about this that I could ask. I think if the husband was driving and “lost control” of their truck he should be liable, not the employer.
December 29th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
I did not see where the company paid for the food
Also if she were on duty and it was the company’s responsibility why wasn’t she driving?
It says he lost control of the truck I wonder if he were tested for drugs or anything
How can she prove that is really what she was doing? What if she were really just buying groceries for her family?
December 29th, 2009 at 12:51 pm
I thought this was clearly a cut and dry case; until I thought it through a little more. Not enough facts are known here to make a “reasonable” assesment.
FYI. The Municipality I work for, if you are using your personal vehicle for a work related task, it is treated as if it were a “company” vehicle regardless who is driving so this would be a moot point for me.
However, the article states the company “supported” pot-lucks. The article does not state if the employer “directed” her to go and pick up food and gifts; big difference.
And as far as being “on-call”, most of us in society are “on-call”. However, if she belongs to a collective bargaining unit and their negotiated contract contains language that would compensate her for being “on-call”, this could be the key piece of evidence to determine the outcome this case.
Just my .02
December 29th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
This is just a reflection of what is going on with the healthcare debate today.
On the one hand you have an employee and co-worker that is injured in an accident. You would probably be hard pressed to find anyone at the company who did not hope that she recieve excellent care and support and hope for a speedy recovery.
On the other hand, this will cause an increase in Workers Compensation rates based on a percentage of the total payroll in the next few years and could be substantial when determining raises, layoffs, upgrades, etc.
I have noticed over the years that the states have used Workers Compensation and Unemployment as alternative sources to divert those who would normally need public assistance. This keeps their “welfare” costs down for the governor’s next election while raises the cost on employers and industry driving the jobs out of state or out of the country. However, if these costs were placed into a government fund that acts as a “safety net”, it would still have to be paid for, probably by taxes. This possible could spread the costs over a larger area resulting in less impact on an individual or small group, but would still have to be paid for.
For myself, I think that this decision is WRONG based on how the Worker’s Compensation program was set up. Workers Compensatation was never set up to cover all the medical needs of all who may be employed by a certain employer. It was to cover injuries on the job and limit an employer’s liability.
December 29th, 2009 at 2:28 pm
This is ludicrius. The judges need to make decisions based on the facts of the case and not on the sad story of the plaintiffs. Obviously we don’t know all the facts of the case, but if the employer didn’t pay for the food or send her to the store, it was not a work related accident. Furthermore, the husband was driving and he was not an employee so where is his liability and if the accident was not his fault because I don’t know the facts of the accident, then where is the liability of the person who caused the accident?
I would say good luck to this womens employer and her future employer as once she learns to screw the system, and figures it is easier then actually earning a living she will probably do it agian.
December 29th, 2009 at 2:29 pm
Notanyjoe sums it up in a nutshell. Nice job, surprised to see nobody jumped on the podium and shouted some ignorant response to such a realistic and truthful declaration.
While Notanyjoe refers to Work Ethic, I preferred to keep it in simple terms of loyalty as many workers in today society have no knowledge of “Work Ethic” as evidenced by the article.
Not my intention to take the matter to a higher level, but hats off to you Notanyjoe for brining to light the problem of the American work force. “Participate in their own destiny” really sends a thoughtful yet realistic message home.
I encourage everyone that responds to these safety scenarios to take the same time to write your state and federal representatives and participate in the political process. If you don’t you have no reason to complain. I want to thank Safety/NewsAlert for allowing its readers the opportunity to respond and comment.
December 29th, 2009 at 2:57 pm
Welcome to the United Soviet Socialism States of America. America is now the 7th most free-est country in the world. We were #1 at one time.
December 29th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
No where in the article does it say she was “sent to pick up the food” by the employer. The definition of a potluck is that each person makes a dish of their choice and brings it to the meal. an as far as breing on call why does that make her eligible. it doesn’t say she was “on a call” but rather “on call” which means she is available in case they needed her. We have people on call all of the time. Does that mean they are eligible for comp if they hurt themselves at home? I really hope there are facts that are not included in this article that caused the courts to make this decision. If not I believe it’s just one more example of why people are afraid to start new businesses and why so many of our jobs are going out of the country where they don’t have to deal with this type of judgements.
December 29th, 2009 at 4:06 pm
Hmmmm…seems to me that the decision would have to factor in whether the driver of the car was at fault for the vehicular side of things…there is more to this story that we do not know. If the woman got into the car with a person that was under the influence, distracted by usage of a cell phone, speeding, OR everything was perfectly fine???? Generally agree with the decision as it is an assigned work task, but just wonder what in all the evaluators had at their fingertips…
December 29th, 2009 at 6:05 pm
Totally Dig on what Diane, Jeff S and Notanyjoe said! RIGHT ON!!!!
December 29th, 2009 at 7:39 pm
A lot of assumptions being made by some making comments. On its face, the story appears to be deliberately written to cause outcry, even though there are obviously a couple of clues missing. If the employee was actually traveling to purchase food or gifts on behalf of the employer, and would not have otherwise made the trip anyway, the claim begins to sound more plausible. If she was only traveling to the store to make personal purchase of items to take to the potluck, like every other employee would be doing, I do not think the claim would have been upheld. If the purpose of the trip meets the “arises out of employment” test, it is easy to see the “on call” status upheld as “in the course of employment.” Besides, we’re talking about California here.
December 29th, 2009 at 10:15 pm
Just another example of how pathetic our court systems have become. Most people would be embarrased to report to anyone just how irresponsible they were when driving their vehicle on a public hi-way. Not in California or Wisc (apparently), where the people are trained early in life how to stick it to their employer for a free ride.
December 30th, 2009 at 10:41 am
Thanks My-O-Pinion. I went back and re-read each of the posts identified in your posts. In the most sincere form of compliment, I have to say, I wish I could remove my former post - I have changed my mind. Let me explain, in our world we as people are bombarded with what we see, hear, etc., to the extent that we become desensitized to things that are, in the most basic form, just plain wrong. They evolve, then become OK, accepted as the way business is done, but when they broken down to their most basic elements, there is only one conclusion - they are wrong. NOTANYJOE - extremely well articulated, especially the part about the fault lying with both the company and the employee, I simply never thought about it in that manner. I had accepted the fact that the WC board typically would rule for the employee in this case, so it was OK. The employer should not owe her one red cent. Good job NOTANYJOE…
December 30th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
First of all her husband was not on company time. It is sad that it happened but I think since she was not driving the employer should not owe her annything! So if a company supplies lunch and it is delivered by the food company and they got in a accident would the employer be liable?
It is sad how many people work the system and win. Who pays? The employers. Why are so many comapnies closing? Why? The economy and when it is bad drives more claims. It’s just a shame and some how something needs to be done about it.
December 30th, 2009 at 2:42 pm
Absolutely Ridiculous. If an employer sponsors youth athletics, are we now responsible for employees travelling to those events? We’ll stop sponsoring because of this.
December 30th, 2009 at 6:09 pm
I would have to agree with those that feel there is not enough information. Was her husband an employee also? Was it a compnay vehicle? What was the cause of the accident? I think it is unreasonable for company’s to be expected to cover their employees for worker’s compensation while driving their own vehicles, unless of course that is a defined and or expected part of their job. If I choose to run an errand for my companny in my own vehicle than I take some of the responsibilty and liability, and if I place that car in someone else’s hands than they should be the responsible party. The employer has no way of verifying insurance, driving record etc… in these cases so they should not be liable. There are many things to think about in a case like this especially as it relates to employees running errands while on company time.
December 31st, 2009 at 10:04 am
I recently changed insurance companies and when going through the application process I was asked about 10 different times as to whether I would be or if there’s a possibility that I will be using my vehicle for business purposes. If you are using you vehicle for business purposes even as slight as going to the grocery store you have to have insurance that states such. My employer rents us a car no matter what the purpose. Paul, I think it’s commendable that you would take some of the liability on your own shoulder’s however, WC law doesn’t allow the employer to sign of on liablity for any reason.
We live in a society now that promises everything for nothing. IE… Our new healthcare system. All new administration’s promise (Republican and Democrat alike) to give us something eluding to us never having to pay a dime for it. We are all in the toilet and someone flushed it years ago. The more they promise to hand out the more people feel entitled, the more people feel entitled the more the administration has to offer and so on and so forth. Right now we are spinning so fast that it’s only a matter of time before we are laying in a pile of crap. We need to empower people not entitle them. If it’s worth having it’s worth working for. Social programs foster an attitude of entitlement, whereas work fosters and attitude of empowerment. I will leave you with a quote from, I believe, Sara Hughs, olympic gymnast. “The harder you work the harder it is to surrender.”
January 4th, 2010 at 5:21 pm
Crummy decision. If this decision is typical of what the law allows in terms of WC, then we have clearly gone off the deep end, and I think we’re soon going to be so deep we’ll never make it back to the realm of the reasonable. As other posters have noted, no one has to be responsible for their own circumstances and consequences any more. The government will save me. It is utopia!
January 5th, 2010 at 10:31 am
Amazing…just like the woman who sued McDonalds because the “hot” coffee burned her. Wonder what would have happened had it not been her husband driving? Who would she have sued then?
January 12th, 2010 at 9:32 am
So if I slip and fall in Kroger while shopping for next week’s lunches I am covered by WC? Cool! Obviously a bad decision from the court. My company was sued several years ago by an empoyee’s daughter after the Ohio courts ruled that the corporation’s uninsured/underinsured vehicle coverage extended to employees and close family members. The daughter was in an accident casued by a drunk driver, neither of whom were ever employed by my company, while driving her personal vehicle on personal time. Yet the courts had ruled that my company’s auto coverage should apply to her! Luckily the state legislature stepped in to stop this mess and the suit went away. Google Pontzer v. Liberty Mutual.
January 27th, 2010 at 1:05 pm
Well now that is California and they have laws and interpretations of the law that differ so much from the other states.
this should not have been granted
February 16th, 2010 at 2:16 pm
It doesn’t seem like she should have been awarded based on the information given. Yet, there may be details not included that resulted in the decision. Was the set-up, prep, etc. of the dinners part of her job description or responsibilities? Did her employer required (or strongly expect) her to set-up, shop or coordinate the dinner on her own time or face loss of job or benefits? An interesting thought - would that trip to the store have qualified for mileage reimbursement?
February 23rd, 2010 at 9:52 am
Even if we don’t know all the facts in this case there are a few things we can be sure of. One is that she probably was covered by car insurance but thought WC would pay better. Two she obviously didn’t get the point of a potluck to promote team work since she went out of her way to screw her peers. Third and final is that the employer is not going to be so willing to do the extra things for the employees that make the difference. I work for a small company that could be put out of business by a unjustified claim like this. Personally I couldn’t do that to the people working their butts off beside me just so I can have something for free or stick it to the man.
May 11th, 2010 at 9:07 am
I see why they ruled like they did..but seriously…this is silly. You can’t tell me shouldn’t wouldn’t have bought ANY of her own groceries? She probably waited till the last minute so she could do her own shopping as well..seriously. I can’t stand it when people do not take responsibility of their own actions. HER HUSBAND lost control of the vehicle. What else were they doing on this trip? Were they stopping to get gas? Pay bills? Was the grocery store for the potluck just a last minute stop?
May 18th, 2010 at 12:10 pm
If this was for a company potluck, why was she not provided a company vehicle to make the purchases? Was she on the clock when the purchases were made? This only encourages other people to be sue happy, as most Americans are becoming. There is no accountability but to blame someone else. The bottom line is this … her husband was driving their own personal vehicle. That’s why you have insurance. It should have been their responsibility to cover the expenses instead of putting that upon the company. And I agree with what Tony said — that will only discourage employers from doing anything in the future.