Injured while getting coffee: Will she get workers’ compensation?
July 16, 2012 by Fred HosierPosted in: In this week's e-newsletter, Injuries, new court decision, Special Report, Workers' comp
PDF A police officer left the station to walk one block and get a cup of coffee. She was struck by a car and seriously injured. Should she get workers’ compensation benefits?
Carolyn McDermed was a lieutenant for the Eugene, OR, police department. Her duties were mostly at the police station as part of the Office of Professional Standards.
In April 2008, she left the station to get a cup of coffee across the street. She was struck by a car at the intersection and suffered multiple injuries to her head, right foot and chest.
McDermed applied for workers’ comp benefits. The city denied her request because her injuries didn’t occur “in the course of” nor “arose out of” her employment. She appealed the decision, and an administrative law judge (ALJ) awarded her benefits.
An appeal by the city was upheld by a workers’ comp board. The city took the case to a state appeals court.
The comp board’s decision noted that while McDermed’s duties primarily involved office work, her responsibilities included all police lieutenant and officer duties.
In addition, during her 17 years with the police force, McDermed had been responsible for instituting the city’s community policing efforts. Community policing included “engaging the community in problem solving strategies to not only react to crime, but to prevent it,” and “meeting a lot of people and being exposed to these people as a police officer and working with them.”
Each day, McDermed took a short break to get a cup of coffee and immediately return to drink it at her desk. During that time she was still on duty and expected to carry a cell phone and respond to calls.
Over the years, she also acted as an on-duty officer while going to get coffee. For example:
- Once she witnessed a traffic crash on the street between the station and the coffee shop. She responded by administering first aid and calling for emergency assistance.
- Another time she encountered a vehicle on fire near the station and used a fire extinguisher and then provided crowd control.
In its appeal to the state court, the city argued at the time of the injury, McDermed was engaged in a “solely personal mission.”
However, the appeals court agreed with the previous rulings. McDermed “did not cease being an on-duty police officer when she left her office and entered the street,” the court wrote in its opinion. She was still on duty and required to perform police duties as she encountered them.
The city also argued that the lieutenant wasn’t performing a police duty at the time she was struck by the car.
Once again, the appeals court shot down the city’s argument, noting the community policing component of her job required “interacting with people on the streets to discuss public issues,” and that exposed her to certain risks, including being struck by a car.
Even without the community policing aspect of her job, the court said it would have upheld the board’s decision, “so long as she was on duty and subject to a continuing obligation to act as a law enforcement officer in response to events she encountered.”
The previous decision was upheld. The appeals court said McDermed should receive workers’ comp benefits.
What do you think about the court’s decision? Let us know in the comments below.
(City of Eugene v. McDermed, Court of Appeals of OR, No. A144661, 6/27/12)
The Safety Insights You Need
Get the latest safety news, trends, and insights - delivered weekly.
Join over 334,000 safety pros:
Privacy policy
Tags: in the course of employment, injured while getting coffee, police lieutenant, workers' compensation
Loading ...
July 16th, 2012 at 12:38 pm
I feel it’s right because she was on the clock. But,those two examples they gave in the article are poor because most everyday citizens would have helped out in those cases and had done (or tried to) the same things. Let’s say a construction worker left his construction site to cross the street and get a coffee. I wonder if because he wasn’t a cop if he’d be denied WC? He is working to protect others by repairing the roads, or flagging traffic to keep others safe. I tend to think the state would favor the cop over the construction worker. It’s sad.
July 17th, 2012 at 6:39 am
I agree with the court. Being a police officer, just like a person in the military, it is a 24 hr job. you can be called in in a moments notice. so she was a desk jocky, but she still is an officer of the law and acted as such, she was in the premiss of doing her job, going to get coffee is just like some one going out for a smoke break, going to the water cooler, bathroom. On occation she even upheld her duites to and from the coffee shop. Yes there should have been no squabbling about this, the city just wasted legal fees tring to save a buck, and not have to pay workmans comp. heck it was not like someone was abusing the system.
July 17th, 2012 at 6:45 am
Another case of safety gone wild. The court upholding that she is entitled to WC because in the past she provided normal, humanitarian services that most civilians could and would have provided, fire extinguisher, etc is beyond ludicrous. Where will the entitlement attitude take us next? If I am at home thinking about a work problem and I have a heart attack?
Don’t get me wrong, in her case, I believe she is entitled, but not for the reasons the board upheld.
July 17th, 2012 at 8:21 am
A police officer is unequivocally “on-duty” when wearing the uniform. As a Lieutenant, this officer engages in a broad array of activities to support public order at all times. Additionally, while any good citizen will respond and assist in the noted examples, a police officer is obligated to do so; a citizen may stand and observe – without moral or legal consequence. Talk to any police officer; whether in uniform or not, they see themselves as always on duty: If they see a crime in progress, they respond. And, to be sure, most police departments encourage this philosophy; it benefits the maintenance of civil society.
To then attempt to deny the officer WC means the philosophy and duty only exists in one direction. Oh, and I’m not a police officer - I’m a hospital risk manager!
July 17th, 2012 at 9:40 am
I think this is a total waste of money paying her benefits that should NOT have been awarded. The only way that this would be possible is IF the police station that she was working at gave her permission to walk across the street everyday to get coffee. If, that was the case then yes she should be awarded the benefits. If not, then no. Just because she is wearing a police unioform doesnt mean that she is out on the street patrolling. As we saw in this case, she was basically a desk clerk.
July 17th, 2012 at 10:11 am
Even though I respect police officers and the life risking jobs they do, I must remind you that some wouldn’t help stop a crime if they didn’t have to. Some are thieves, some do drugs, some are arsons, etc. Some are just in it for themselves. So I wouldn’t build them ALL up that much. After all they’re just like the rest of us with or without the uniform.
July 17th, 2012 at 10:12 am
I feel sorry for anyone getting hit by a vehicle and find it very interesting that this story doesn’t say anything about whose fault it was. Lets assume it was the drivers fault for a minute, simply because I don’t believe an officer would walk out in front of a vehicle. The drivers insurance would be responsible for covering costs associated with this accident, that would include lost wages. Is this a case of double dipping?
July 17th, 2012 at 10:32 am
I agree with the court. There may be special circumstances that come into play when the injured party is a police officer. However, I think the claim should have been paid even if the employee was not a police officer. It appears that the city allowed her to leave and come back each day for the coffee, which makes it a normal part of the everyday job, just as going to the restroom or vending area. If the employer allows such things as making a quick trip to the bank or other everyday tasks, an employee could possibly be covered.
A defense for the employer might be proof that employees have been explicitly instructed that such trips are not allowed.
July 17th, 2012 at 11:40 am
Agree - police, firefighters, and otehr uniformed public employees are always on duty especially when seen in uniform, whther they are on breaks, thos ebreaks oftne get interrupted to repsond to something. I cant tell you how mnay times I see officers tyring to eat a meal and then they have to bolt and leave the food etc just sitting there.. the city managers must not have been in the uniformed services of any sort…
July 17th, 2012 at 11:57 am
Joe, It could have been the officers fault. She could have been checking her phone for a text, missed call, seeing who may be calling, texting someone herself, etc. The article just doesn’t give out enough information.
July 17th, 2012 at 12:26 pm
We can safely repeal Obamacare! I’m now convinced all injuries can be made Workers’ Compensation.
July 17th, 2012 at 1:58 pm
I concur. Now excuse me. I’m going out for a donut myself.
July 17th, 2012 at 5:26 pm
This story highlights the importance of establishing consistent policies regarding employees leaving property. It’s clear that the lieutenant’s trips across the street were common, accepted and condoned by her superiors for years before the accident. In the eyes of her command she was regarded as being on the clock and on duty, for the duration of her shift, even while off premises. Under those conditions the ruling is completely fair. The lesson for employers is to be careful what you allow, for what you allow will become routine, and what is routine is compensable.
July 18th, 2012 at 10:59 am
@Butch - well said.
I thought one requirement for WC was to have greater exposure to a hazard than what the general public would be. In this case, I don’t believe that was proven.
July 24th, 2012 at 10:08 am
Basically these rules are going ruin all of our employee perks, such as going to get a cup of coffee, off site lunch breaks, taking a walk on your lunch break, picking up a sick child to bring them to a babysitter, etc. The more people claim these types of incidents and win, the more it will ruin it for everyone. Cops/Fire fighters are not the only people that are “on duty” at all times. Most people have cell phones and accept phone calls on their breaks and off time. She was purchasing coffee for personal consumption; had she been asked to purchase coffee for everyone in the office it would be a different story.