Do You Know the Rule? Ohio Test for Determining Whether Worker is 'Fixed-situs'

Columbus, OH (WorkersCompensation.com) --In Ohio, the question of whether a worker who is injured while commuting to work generally hinges on whether the employee is a fixed-situs employee. 

In layman’s terms, this means that the employee does most of his work at a specific worksite. If that’s the case, then the “coming and going rule” applies to that worker, and the worker typically is out of luck if he tries to secure worker’s compensation benefits for the injuries.

The chart below explains the fixed-situs test and provides examples of how courts have applied it.

Determining 'Fixed-situs' Status

Test:

Does the employee commence his substantial employment duties only after arriving after at a specific and identifiable workplace designated by his employer?

Notes:

• An employee who merely performs incidental work outside of the workplace is a fixed-situs employee.
• An employee's subjective intent regarding the purposes of his travel is not determinative.
• Simply because an employee completes some duties at home on a weekly basis does not make the employee a non-fixed-situs employee

Examples of fixed situs employees (from case law):

• A chiropractor who does paperwork at home but treats patients four days per week in the office.
• A teacher who prepares lesson plans at home but does all other work in a school building.
• A home health care aide who commences her substantial employment duties only after arriving at her patient's residence.

Case example:

An IT worker for a marijuana processing plant was commuting to work. He was on the phone with his girlfriend and about 25 miles from the office when he was injured in a car accident. He sought worker’s compensation benefits, which were denied by both the worker’s compensation commission and a circuit court.

The appellate court explained that, pursuant to the coming and going rule, an employee who sustains an injury while traveling to and from a fixed place of employment, i.e., fixed-situs, is precluded from participating in the workers' compensation fund.

In finding that the employee was fixed-situs, and thus not entitled to benefits, the court in Hurley v. Group Mgt. Servs., Inc., No. 2022 CA 0009 (Ohio Ct. App. 12/27/22), pointed to the following:

• The "bulk" of the employee’s work was done at the facility.
• The worker’s out-of-office phone calls accounted for approximately 5% of his job duties. 
• The worker did not have a company car and he was not paid mileage for his drive to and from work. 
• The worker never testified that the company required him to answer calls during his commute or work at home on the weekends. 
• The company testified that the worker was only expected to answer calls during his commute "if he was available." 

The appellate court held the worker was a fixed-situs employee subject to the coming and going rule. He was therefore not entitled to worker’s compensation benefits for the injuries he sustained.

Want to know the latest from Ohio and the rest of the U.S.? Head to WorkCompResearch

Share This Article: