SAIF v. Massari

An injury occurs in the course of employment if it takes place during a period of employment, at a place where the worker reasonably may be expected to be, and while the worker is fulfilling duties of the employment or doing something reasonably incidental to the employment. Fred Meyer, Inc. v. Hayes, 325 Or 592, 598, 943 P2d 197 (1997).

SAIF sought judicial review of the Workers’ Compensation Board order upholding the compensability of claimant’s injury. SAIF assigned error to the board’s conclusion that Claimant was in the course of his employment while traveling to the hospital. On appeal, SAIF argued that the injury did not arise out of and within the course and scope of employment and was precluded by the “going and coming” rule because, at the time of his injury, Claimant was going to work and therefore was not in the course of his employment.  In response, Claimant argued that at the time of his injury, he was in a regular period of employment and was subject to his employer’s direction and control. An injury occurs in the course of employment if it takes place during a period of employment, at a place where the worker reasonably may be expected to be, and while the worker is fulfilling duties of the employment or doing something reasonably incidental to the employment. Fred Meyer, Inc. v. Hayes, 325 Or 592, 598, 943 P2d 197 (1997). The Court of Appeals held that the going and coming rule did not apply in this case because while the Claimant was not engaged in any work activity at the time of his injury, he was under the employer’s direction and control and thus considered to be in the course of employment. Affirmed.