The issue of injuries while working or otherwise at home for work reasons is something of a new trend. It is so new, in fact, that there is very little in the way of case law or legal standards. However, the trend is likely to continue and grow given the increasingly mobile and decentralized nature of many employments in the modern world.
This issue can arise in the context of the use of work-related electronic devices such as mobile phones and laptops used in the home. It can also arise from designated work offices or spaces at home, or other uses of the worker’s home or personal premises for work activities or for storage of work tools, materials, products, or vehicles.
Based on the limited case law in this area, here are some legal principles, as well as some apparently unanswered questions:
-
- If the employment agreement contemplates the worker working at home or otherwise using the home for work purposes, then the home is considered a workplace of the employer. See Sandberg v. J.C. Penney Ca, 243 Or App 342 (2011) (home considered a workplace when significant work activity performed there by agreement with the employer).
-
- However, not all injuries sustained at home are compensable even if the home is used as a workplace. As with any other injury, a home injury must both “arise out of” and “in the course of” the employment. See Annie K. Hauser, 62 Van Natta 1842 (2010) (injury sustained in trip on stairs while retrieving sweater after fully loading vehicle with work supplies did not “arise out of” the worker’s employment).
-
- Can the parties define the scope or “boundaries” of a home workplace to limit it to a specific part or area of the worker’s home or premises?
-
- Does the “going and coming rule” apply to travel between work and non-work parts or areas of the worker’s home or premises?
-
- Does the “personal comfort doctrine” apply in a home setting the same way it does in a traditional workplace setting?
- Does the “recreational or social activities” exclusion apply in a home setting the same way it does in a traditional workplace setting?
The lead decision from the courts is Sandberg v. J. C. Penney, Inc. , 243 Or App 342 (2011). There, the worker was injured when she tripped over her dog while walking toward her garage to perform some work activity there.
The worker was a custom decorator, and kept sale samples in her van to show to potential customers. She used her home garage to store samples that would, from time to time, need to be changed out with other samples and materials that were kept in her van. The worker was not allowed to store the samples in the employer’s studio and was instructed by the employer to store the products at home, or any other place that kept the products safe and dry. On a weekend day, the worker needed to remove “old” fabrics from her van and replace them with “new” fabrics that were being stored in her garage. While walking out the back door of her home to the garage to change the fabrics, the worker tripped over her own dog, lost her balance and fell. Her only purpose for walking out the back door to go to the garage was to “switch out” fabrics for her appointment the next day.
The Court of Appeals determined that claimant’s injury “arose out of” her employment because she was required, as a condition of her employment and for the benefit of her employer, to work in her home and garage. Those areas constituted the worker‘s work environment when she was working, and injuries suffered as a result of the risks of those environments, encountered when claimant was working, arose out of her employment.
On remand, the Board concluded that the injury also occurred ”in the course of“ employment because claimant was injured within the period of her employment, at a place where she reasonably was expected to be, and while she reasonably was fulfilling the duties of the employment or doing something reasonably incidental to it. Mary S. Sandberg, 64 Van Natta 238 (2012).
Another potentially instructive case is SAIF v. Massari, 291 Or App 349 (2018), a case previously summarized under the heading of the “going and coming” rule. In that case, the court concluded that the “shift” of a physician employed by a clinic in Bend began at home when he turned on his pager at 7 am, the beginning time for his shift. The court noted that the worker had a home office, which was equipped with an employer-provided computer that allowed him access to medical records and research tools, although the worker did not use his home office on the morning of his injury. Nor did the worker receive any page that morning.
The worker was injured after leaving home and traveling to the hospital where he was to work that day, after he slipped in the hospital parking lot. However, given the court’s conclusion that the worker’s shift began at home when he turned on his pager, it would appear to follow that, had the injury occurred due to the worker slipping in his home or in his driveway, that injury at home also would have been compensable.
In Annie K. Hauser, 62 Van Natta 1842 (2010), the worker, a custom decorator, worked out of her home as well as at the employer’s place of business. On the date of her injury, she prepared two bids at her home. She then made three trips from her living room to her car to load her vehicle with items she would use for an appointment at a client’s home. After the third trip, she went upstairs in her home to get a sweater because she anticipated that it would be cold outside for her evening appointment. As she walked downstairs after getting the sweater she fell on the last step and injured her ankle. The Board concluded that the risk of injury arose from worker’s home environment, which was outside the employer’s control. Moreover, the risk existed whenever claimant walked down her own stairs, for whatever reason she chose to do so. Under those particular circumstances, the Board found that claimant’s risk of injury was a “personal” risk and, therefore, her injury did not “arise out of“ her employment.
In Margaret A. Jones, 61 Van Natta 1867 (2009), the worker, a law enforcement officer, was placed on administrative leave and “duty~stationed” at home. She was required to stay at her residence from 8:00 am. to 4:00 pm. During her duty hours, she was permitted to prepare food, engage in domestic chores, or any other activity so long as it did not violate the rules set forth in the employer’s “duty-stationed” policy. During her duty stationed hours, the worker picked up a vacuum cleaner hose and tripped over it as she was transporting it down the stairs. She fell several steps and suffered contusions, a strain, and abrasions. The Board held that the was not compensable because the risk of injury from tripping over her own vacuum cleaner hose in her home was so clearly personal that it could not be attributable to her employment. The worker was exposed to this risk, not by virtue of her employment, but due to performing a domestic chore in her own home. She was not assigned to vacuum or clean her house as part of her employment. Household chores do not become “work activities” just because they are permitted by the employer. The worker’s assignment was simply to remain on her premises during the designated hours. The “bunkhouse” rule did not apply because the employer did not require claimant to live on its premises, nor was she injured as a result of the condition in which the employer maintained the premises.