Workers’ Compensation Granted for Midday Travel Injury in Hawes

The case of Appeal of Hawes involved a workers' compensation claim in which the claimant, Elba Hawes, sought benefits for injuries sustained in a car accident while traveling home after being instructed by his employer to leave work early and rest before returning for a special overnight shift. The New Hampshire Compensation Appeals Board (CAB) initially denied the claim, applying the "coming and going rule," which generally excludes injuries sustained during travel to and from work from workers' compensation coverage. The New Hampshire Supreme Court reversed the CAB’s decision, ruling that the injuries were compensable under the "special errand" exception to the coming and going rule.

Background and Legal Issues

Hawes was employed as a groundman for Asplundh Tree Expert, LLC. On November 1, 2019, he arrived at work for his regular shift from 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Due to an impending storm, the employer instructed workers to leave at noon, go home, and rest before returning at 8:00 p.m. for overnight storm cleanup. After leaving the job site and punching out at a designated sandpit where he parked his personal vehicle, Hawes was severely injured in a car accident while driving home.

His employer’s insurance carrier denied workers' compensation benefits, arguing that his injuries were not work-related. The Department of Labor upheld this decision, and the CAB affirmed it, finding that the injury fell under the coming and going rule. Hawes appealed to the New Hampshire Supreme Court, arguing that his travel home was directly connected to his employment and should be compensable.

Court’s Analysis and Findings

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Hawes, determining that:

• The "special errand" exception applied because Hawes was instructed to leave work at noon and return later for a special overnight shift, making his trip home part of his work duties.
• The employer’s instruction to leave and rest before returning to work was a directive tied to his employment, and his travel was not part of his regular schedule.
• The risk of a vehicular accident was an employment-created risk because the employer required the worker to travel home at an unusual time as part of his job duties.
• The CAB erred by failing to consider whether Hawes’s injuries arose from an employment-related risk, instead relying solely on the coming and going rule.

The court compared this case to prior rulings where special assignments outside normal working hours subjected employees to unique travel risks, making injuries sustained during such travel compensable.

Conclusion and Ruling

The New Hampshire Supreme Court reversed the CAB’s decision and remanded the case, holding that Hawes’s injuries were compensable under the special errand exception. The ruling clarifies that travel required by an employer outside of an employee’s regular schedule can be considered work-related for the purposes of workers' compensation.

Legal Guidance for Employment-Related Claims

Navigating workers' compensation and employment-related legal challenges requires a thorough understanding of legal exceptions and employer obligations. Our team at Whitcomb, Selinsky, PC assists clients with employment disputes, workplace injury claims, and labor law compliance.