An employee returning from lunch slipped just inside the building in which her employer had offices. Was she close enough to work for this accident to have occurred in the course of employment?

What happened. “Carla” worked for American Trucking Association (ATA) in the Regent Building in Arlington, VA. On December 5, 2007, a snowy day, she walked to a local restaurant for lunch. On her way back to work, she slipped on ice as she walked past the electronic card reader and gate that controlled access to the building’s underground driveway and garage. She injured her knees, back, and neck.

Carla filed a claim for workers’ compensation medical benefits. ATA countered that she had not been injured in the course of employment. The deputy commissioner found that the injuries had occurred within ATA’s extended premises and awarded her benefits. The full commission affirmed this finding. ATA appealed.

What the court said. Under the Virginia Workers’ Compensation Act, an injury must arise out of and in the course of employment in order to be compensable. Injuries that occur while going to or from work are usually not compensable, but this is a fairly flexible rule. Courts have often found that “employment” includes a reasonable amount of time and space through which an employee must pass to get to work. Injuries incurred on the employer’s premises in the course of coming to work are often found to have occurred in the course of employment. This is fairly common with cases in which employees slip on ice just outside building entrances.

Carla fell inside the Regent Building’s premises. She had left the public road and passed the card reader and gate that were used to grant access to the building. Carla was required to cross the area in which she fell in order to reach her workplace; there was no way for her to get to her office without passing through some common spaces within the building. The parking garage area effectively functioned as “extended premises” of the workplace. She was taking the most direct route from the restaurant back to work, and she was not engaged in any personal enterprise when she fell.

ATA argued that it did not control the parking lot. It is true that Virginia courts have sometimes found that parking lot injuries are not compensable because employers do not control them. The court found that this argument was not relevant because the accident had nothing to do with parking. Carla was not entering the parking garage itself, and the fact that her car was in the garage had nothing to do with her accident. The relevant question was where Carla was when she hurt herself. She was definitely on Regent Building property, traversing one of the few convenient and available paths to her office. As an ATA employee she had the right to be in this area, and it was an area in which her employer could reasonably expect her to be at that time on a workday. The court therefore upheld the award of benefits. American Trucking Assoc. v. Stallings, Court of Appeals of Virginia, No. 0980-09-4 (2/23/10).

Point to remember: “Extended premises” is a flexible concept, but generally covers any place an employee must be to get into the workplace.