Background
Daniel Johnson, an Inspector Supervisor for the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, injured his right ankle on January 23, 2025, while exiting a state vehicle to close a gate at his home as he was leaving to travel to a jobsite. He slipped and fell on icy ground. His physician confirmed the injury and work restrictions the same week.
The claim administrator rejected Johnson’s workers’ compensation claim, finding that the injury did not arise in the course of his employment because the slip and fall occurred while he was leaving his property, which the administrator determined was outside the scope of employment. Johnson appealed, arguing that as a field-based employee required to travel to multiple jobsites as part of his duties, his work begins when he leaves home and operates the state vehicle.
The Workers’ Compensation Board of Review reversed the denial, finding that Johnson was in the course of his employment when the injury occurred. State Agencies appealed to the Intermediate Court of Appeals.
The Court’s Holding
The court affirmed the Board’s reversal. The court applied the three-element test for compensable workers’ compensation claims: (1) personal injury, (2) received in the course of employment, and (3) resulting from that employment. West Virginia law recognizes that employees are entitled to compensation for injuries sustained while traveling on the employer’s business, particularly when employees are required to routinely journey from place to place as a condition of employment.
The court found that Johnson, as a field-based employee who routinely traveled from his home to various jobsites in a state work vehicle, was within the scope of his employment when injured. The court distinguished the case from Hood v. Lincare Holdings, where no slip or fall occurred and the claimant faced only a neutral risk. Instead, the court compared it to American Medical Facilities v. Parsons, where a slip and fall while walking to an employer’s break room was deemed compensable. The court concluded that Johnson’s risks were directly associated with his employment duties.
Under the deferential “clearly wrong” standard of review, the court found the Board’s decision supported by substantial evidence and declined to overturn the Board’s factual determination or weighing of evidence.
Key Takeaways
- Field-based employees who are required to routinely travel between jobsites as part of their employment duties are entitled to workers’ compensation for travel-related injuries.
- An injury sustained while exiting a work vehicle at the start of a workday can be compensable if the employee regularly travels from home to jobsites as an essential job function.
- Courts apply deferential review to workers’ compensation board decisions, upholding factual determinations that are supported by substantial evidence.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies the scope of “course of employment” for mobile and field-based workers, including inspectors, surveyors, maintenance personnel, and similar roles that require travel between work locations. The ruling establishes that travel from home to jobsites is an integral part of employment when routinely required by the job, and injuries during such travel are work-related regardless of whether the injury occurs on the employee’s own property.
For employers and employees alike, the decision signals that field-based positions involving required travel create employer liability for travel-related accidents. This is significant in West Virginia and illustrates courts’ recognition that modern employment structures often involve remote-based or home-based workers who must travel to multiple locations, and such travel is compensable work activity rather than personal commuting.