A majority of the Commission affirmed the
arbitrator's award of benefits to a truck driver who was injured while
searching for his cell phone because his injury was incidental to his
employment.
Case Name: Robert Fisher v. Roadway Express, [Ill. Ind. Com.]
Nos. 00
WC 17421, 02 IIC 0429, 05/31/02
The claimant, a truck driver for a delivery
company, suffered his injury on Christmas Eve after he completed his job
duties, returned the truck to the company's terminal and went home. The
claimant discovered he had lost his cell phone. The claimant called the
terminal and was told by the supervisor on duty that the phone was not
in the office. The claimant returned to the terminal and searched the
office together with the supervisor. The claimant searched the truck and
was returning to the office, when he slipped and fell on ice. He
suffered an occult fracture of the distal right radius.
The claimant testified he needed to retrieve
the cell phone on Christmas Eve for three reasons:
-
He wished to ensure the cell phone was fully
charged so he could use it for work purposes;
-
He need to search the truck because there
was no guarantee he would use the truck his next scheduled workday; and
-
He needed the
cell phone because defendant's policy was to call him on the cell phone
to notify him of the time to report to work.
The defendant's safety director confirmed
the claimant needed the cell phone for work purposes. He also indicated
the company felt it was in its best interest to promptly dispatch
mechanical or emergency assistance and that cell phones best served this
purpose.
The arbitrator found a cell phone served
defendant's best interests and therefore, the claimant's injury arose
out of the course of his employment. A majority of the Commission
affirmed the arbitrator's ruling.
The dissent noted the company did not
require the claimant to have a cell phone while at home and the employer
could have called the claimant on his home telephone. The dissenting
Commission member also stated that because the defendant's premises
were closed on Christmas Eve and the claimant had not work-related
reason to go there, the defendant had no obligation to keep its premises
free of ice.
