Recently, H.B. 447 was introduced in Ohio that would exclude workers compensation injuries that occur while working from home, unless certain conditions are met. The bill is currently in review by the House Insurance Committee, but if passed into legislature Ohio work from home injuries would only be compensable if all of the following conditions are met:

  • The injury or disability arises out of the employee's employment; 
  • The employment necessarily exposes the employee to conditions that substantially contribute to the risk of injury or disability; and 
  • The injury or disability is sustained in the course of an activity undertaken by the employee for the exclusive benefit of the employer.

For example, an employee works for a vending machine company that allows employees to take home the plastic containers and fill them with toys that go into the machines. While working with the plastic containers one breaks and slices the palm of the employee. The employee needs treatment, antibiotics, and cannot use both hands for a week while the injury heals. This would be a compensable claim. 

Another employee is an office worker who works on the computer and is working from home. While making lunch, the employee trips over the cat, spraining his ankle. This would not be compensable under this Ohio law. 

While we are unaware of any other state(s) taking such action, the determination of court cases in several states indicate that the worker's injury must be directly impacted by the worker's employment activities to be compensable.

ALABAMA 

Mercy Logging, LLC v. Odom, 104 So. 3d 908 (Ala. Ct. Civ. App. 2012)

A man in a logging business saw a big rattlesnake on the road en route to his job site. The man attempted to pick up the snake and was bitten on both hands. He then filed a workers compensation claim for $300k+. The trial court said claims were compensable because his injuries arose out and in the course of his employment: "[he] was bitten by the rattlesnake at a time and at or near a place and while performing an activity for which he was hired…caught the rattlesnake with the express or implicit authorization and acquiescence of Mercy, and that Mercy and its employees received an economic benefit by Odom's activity in removing the rattlesnake from or near Mercy's job site." However, the Civil Appeals Court reversed the decision of the trial court, determining that it was not an occupational hazard; the claimant's risk was zero as long as he stayed in the truck; the risk only became personal when he got out of the truck. 

ALASKA 

Macomber v. Yupiit School. District, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63748 (D. Alaska 2016) 

A teacher worked in an off-road remote settlement. The School District provided housing for each year she was employed. The teacher alleged three negligence claims against the District due to injuries suffered in the provided housing. It was determined that the "remote site" doctrine applied; therefore, workers compensation was the exclusive remedy for her injuries. 

FLORIDA

Sedgwick CMS v. Valcourt-Williams, 271 So. 3d 1133 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. April 2019) 

A woman who had a "work-from-home" arrangement with her employer tripped over her dog while reaching for a coffee cup. The company was located in Florida, while the employee worked remotely in Arizona. The Florida Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) ruled the injury was compensable because "the employer imported the work environment into the claimant's home…'". However, this was reversed in the Court of Appeals because the risk of tripping over a dog existed whether she worked from home or not; it existed before she started her job, and it would exist after employment ended, so long as she had a dog; therefore, her injuries did not arise out of employment. Two judges dissented, saying that the woman's injuries were related to her job because her house was her workplace, and the kitchen was her "workday breakroom." 

Reynolds v. Anixter Power Solutions., 287 So. 3d 670 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App., December 2019) 

While at a paid, work-sponsored bowling activity, a woman injured her leg. The injured woman stated that she was not told she could have stayed at work or taken vacation instead of attending the event. An exception in Fla. Stat. §440.092(1) applied because the activity, while social/recreational in nature, was "an expressly required incident of employment and it produced a substantial direct benefit to the employer beyond improvement in employee health and morale." The goals of the event included a discussion of company goals for the upcoming year. An electronic option to decline the event was not determined to be sufficient to establish that the event was voluntary; therefore, the woman's injury was compensable. 

TEXAS

Painter v. Amerimex Drilling I, Ltd., 2021 Tex. App. LEXIS 2763 (Tex. Ct. App. 2021) 

An employed driller was driving the drilling crew back to employer-provided lodging. The driver employee received $50 per day for driving the crew between the drilling site and the campsite; evidence confirmed the driller was providing the driving services as part of his assigned job duties. While en route, the driller was involved in a car wreck; two persons were killed, and two (including the driver) were injured. The driver's injuries were compensable because he was paid to transport the crew; as such, he was found to be working within the course and scope of his employment. However the other workers' claims were not compensable, according to the Texas Workers Comp Division. The Texas Court of Appeals found that there was no evidence that the three others "shared [the] responsibility of driving fellow crew members…or that they were compensated for doing so." As such, there was nothing to indicate that the crew was acting in the scope and course of their employment as a matter of law. Even the driving duty wasn't an established practice because the employer-provided housing was normally on site, but that particular site didn't allow on-site housing. The case was remanded for further proceedings.  

For further reading: