Bouldin v. Miss. Dep't of Health


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2007-WC-00810-COA
Linked Case(s): 2007-WC-00810-COA ; 2007-CT-00810-SCT
Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 07-22-2008
Opinion Author: ISHEE, J.
Holding: Affirmed
Additional Case Information: Topic: Workers’ compensation - Work related injury - Traveling employee rule - Personal comfort doctrine - Threshold doctrine
Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., MYERS, P.J., GRIFFIS AND CARLTON, JJ.
Non Participating Judge(s): BARNES, J.
Dissenting Author : LEE, P.J., with separate written opinion.
Dissent Joined By : IRVING, J.
Concur in Part, Concur in Result 1: CHANDLER, J. with separate written opinion.
Concur in Part, Concur in Result Joined By 1: ROBERTS, J.
Procedural History: Admin or Agency Judgment
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - WORKERS' COMPENSATION
Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 04-11-2007
Appealed from: TALLAHATCHIE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
Judge: Ann H. Lamar
Disposition: DECISION OF THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION DENYING BENEFITS AFFIRMED
Case Number: CV2007-0002LT2
  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: MARY ELLEN BOULDIN




 SARA BAILEY RUSSO



  
  • Appellant #1 Brief
  • Appellant #1 Reply Brief
    		•
    Appellee: MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH HARRIS FREDERICK POWERS, ROBERT S. UPSHAW  
    Synopsis provided by:

    If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals
    hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office.
    Topic: Workers’ compensation - Work related injury - Traveling employee rule - Personal comfort doctrine - Threshold doctrine
    Summary of the Facts: Dr. Mary Ellen Bouldin filed a petition to controvert with the Mississippi Workers’ Compensation Commission alleging that she received a work-related injury. Dr. Bouldin sustained injuries when a vehicle accidentally struck her as she crossed the street returning to her office during a lunch break. An administrative law judge held that Dr. Bouldin’s injuries did not arise out of and in the course of her employment with the Mississippi Department of Health; and therefore, she was not entitled to workers’ compensation benefits. The administrative law judge’s decision was affirmed by both the full Commission and the circuit court. Dr. Bouldin appeals.
    Summary of Opinion Analysis: Dr. Bouldin asserts three theories of recovery: the “traveling employee” rule, the “personal comfort” doctrine, and the “threshold” doctrine. One is injured in the course of employment when an injury results from activity actuated partly by a duty to serve the employer or reasonably incident to the employment. However, if an employee steps aside from the employer's business for some purpose of his own, which is disconnected with his employment, the relation of employer and employee is temporarily suspended and regardless how short the time, and the employer is not liable for the employee’s acts during such time. While injuries received while in transit to or from the job are generally not deemed a compensable injury under workers' compensation laws, an exception exists where a traveling employee goes on a trip to further the business interests of his or her employer. A traveling employee is an employee for whom travel is an integral part of their job. In the record, it is stipulated that Dr. Bouldin had a fixed place of business. Specifically, she worked a set weekly and monthly schedule, rotating between the county health departments of five different counties. There is nothing in the record that suggests Dr. Bouldin’s duties commenced at the moment she left her home. The fact that Dr. Bouldin received reimbursement for her travel does not make her a traveling employee as the term is used in workers’ compensation matters. Even if Dr. Bouldin was to be considered a “traveling employee,” her injury would still not be compensable. If the employee engages in a personal activity or errand that constitutes an abandonment from the employer’s business, an injury occurring during the abandonment is not compensable. The record clearly indicates that Dr. Bouldin was engaged in a personal activity or errand, and as such, she had deviated from the course of her employment at the time of the accident. With regard to personal comfort, a personal comfort activity of an employee should be compensable if it is reasonably incident to the employment, although not a necessity of it. What is reasonably incidental depends both on the practices permitted in the particular plant by the employer and on the customs of the employment environment generally. For employees with a fixed workplace, the “personal comfort” doctrine anticipates the employee being on the employer’s premises. Dr. Bouldin was not on the Tallahatchie County Health Department’s premises, but rather a public street, when her injury occurred. With regard to the “threshold” doctrine, Dr. Bouldin argues that the well-worn footpath that she used to leave the health department’s premises was so closely associated to the health department building as to be considered part of the premises. It is clear from the record that Dr. Bouldin’s employment with the MDH did not place her in a greater hazard on the streets of Sumner than the general walking public. In addition, the footpath was not so situated as to be considered a part of the health department’s premises.


    Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court