KEIM DID NOT DEVIATE FROM ANYTHING THE EMPLOYER INSTRUCTED HIM TO DO. THERE
WAS NOTHING PERSONAL ABOUT WHERE HE WAS, WHAT HE WAS DRIVING, WHY HE WAS GOING
THERE OR WHEN HE WAS DRIVING THERE. ALL OF THESE WERE CONTROLLED BY HIS EMPLOYER.
AND THEY WERE ALL ALSO FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE EMPLOYER. ALTHOUGH THE WORKER'S
COMPENSATION ACT IS TO BE LIBERALLY CONSTRUED IN FAVOR OF COMPENSABILITY THIS
COURT NEED ONLY APPLY THE PLAIN LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE TO PROVIDE HENRY WITH
BENEFITS. HENRY WAS AN OFFICE PREMISES EMPLOYEE OING A COMPANY VEHICLE ON BUSINESS
NOT ONLY AUTHORIZED BUT DIRECTED BY HIS EMPLOYER FALLING DIRECTLY WITHIN THE
STATUTE. THE FACT THAT THE 1979 AMENDMENT WAS ENACTED TO CURTAIL BENEFITS FOR
INJURIES SUSTAINED ON LOCATIONS OTHER THAN THE EMPLOYER'S PREMISE THE BASIC
PATTERNS AND OBJECTS ADVERTISE OF THE ACT REMAINED UNCHANGED. IF THE EMPLOYEE IS
INJURED WHILE \ENGAGED\GAUGED IN AN ACTIVITY SPECIFICALLY DIRECTED BY HIS EMPLOYER
WHICH IS NOT PERSONAL IN NATURE IT IS COMPREHENSIVE. HENRY WAS SERVING THE
NEEDS OF AND THE REQUIREMENTS OF HIS EMPLOYER WHEN HE WAS INVOLVED IN THIS
ACCIDENT AND AS SUCH HE IS ENTITLED TO BENEFITS UNDER THE STATUTE THANK YOU.
THE COURT: WELL UNDER TEN MINUTES. EXCELLENT. MR. RUBENSTEIN SEEN.
RICHARD B. RUBENSTEIN: BATTING NEARLY CLEAN UP GIVES ME THE OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND
TO MR. SOME THINGS THAT TAKE MEDICAL AND THE SAID THAT MAY NOT BE CLEAR BEFORE
THE COURT. MY ADVERSARY MADE THE PROP IS THAT THERE WAS A CHANGE IN THE LAW,
THAT THE FLOOD GATES OF LITIGATION WOULD ANTICIPATE. FAR BE IT FOR ME TO SPEAK
ONLY TO PERSONAL EXPERIENCE BUT AS A PRACTITIONER FOR 39 YEARS IN THE DIVISION OF
WORKER'S COMPENSATION. I CAN TELL YOU THAT THE CURRENT STATE OF THE LAW IS
DAMAGELY AS THE STATUTE HOLDS. ABOUT AN EMPLOYEE WHO OPERATES AN EMPLOYER
AUTHORIZED VEHICLE IN THE DIRECT COURSE OF EMPLOYMENT FOR THE BENEFIT AND AT THE
BEHEST OF THEIR EMPLOYER HAS ALWAYS BEEN CONSIDERED TO BE THE BENEFICIARY OF THE
WORKER'S COMPENSATION ACT. IN 2005 I WAS VISITED BY A NAME ONLY OTHERS CAME
TO SEE ME WITH AN POLICE REPORT AND DETESTER HER HUSBAND HAD YOU BEEN KILLED
WORKING FOR EMPLOYMENT FRITS I AND SON VCC A. DROVE HIS TRUCK HOME EVERY NYHAMMER
JUST AS HENRY KEIM DID. HE WAS ASKED BY HIS EMPLOYER VISIT A PREMISES THAT HAD
AN OLD AIR CONDITION OTHER UNIT. HE HAD TO GET A DIFFERENT HOSE THAN THE KIND
MOUNTED IN HIS STRUCK. SO HE HAD TO GO TO THE EMPLOYMENT PLACE, HIS ACTUAL
PLANT AND ON THE WAY HE WAS STRUCK BY A DRUNK DRIVER AND HE WAS KILLED LEAVING
A WIDOW AND THREE CHILDREN. HE HAD A LETTER FROM LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY
ABOUT THREE WEEKS LATER SAYING THAT THEY REGRETTED THE DECISION THEY HAD TO
DENY THE CASE UNDER SECTION THRIX UNDER THE WORKER'S COMPENSATION ACT BECAUSE
HE WAS ON HIS WAY TO WORK AND HADN'T YET ARRIVED. I FILED A CLAIM PETITION,
I APPEARED BEFORE A JUDGE AND THE JUDGE OF COMPENSATION USING A COMMON SENSE
READING OF SECTION 36 OF THE ACT DETERMINED DURING THE FIRST CONFERENCE THAT THE
ACTUAL STANDARD EMPLOYED IN THE ACT APPLIED THE WORKER'S COMPENSATION BENEFITS TO
THE DEPARTMENT AND THE, THAT INDEED HIS OPERATION OF AN AUTHORIZED VEHICLE EVEN
THOUGH HE WAS GOING FROM HOME TO THE PLANT WAS A COVERED ACCIDENT. I'LL NEVER
FORGET READING THE LETTER FROM LIBERTY MUTUAL WHICH WAS WRITTEN ON DECEMBER
21, 2005 WE'RE SORRY FOR DENYING YOUR CLAIM BUT WE WISH YOU AND YOUR FAMILY A MERRY
CHRISTMAS, THE LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY. THIS IS NOT A COLD AND HEART
LESS ACT. IT'S A BENEVOLENT BENEFIT I HAVE SENT AND REMEDIAL ACT. IT COVERED
THE RODGERS FAMILY BECAUSE THE STATUTE SAID IT SHOULD. JUSTICE SOLOMON:
ARE THERE ANY REPORTED CASES LIKE THE ONE YOU JUST CITED. RICHARD B. RUBENSTEIN:
THERE'S NEVER BEEN A REPORTED CASE. WHEN MR. PASS QUA SAID THERE'S NEVER BEEN
A CASE OLDING FOR THE PETITIONER THAT'S BECAUSE NO ONE HAD THE TEMERITY OF THE
TO CONTEST IT. THE COURT: WHAT IS THE CURRENT PRACTICE WITH RESPECT TO
CONSTRUCTION WORKERS, YOU HEARD A NUMBER OF THE HYPOS. MR. JAO: THERE'S
AN OBJECTIVE STANDARD IF THE CONSTRUCTION WORKERS IS OPERATING AN EMPLOYER
EAR PROVIDED VEHICLE AND IS IN THE COURSE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT AND HE IS CAUSED BY THE
EMPLOYEES EDICT OR REQUEST OR CONTROL TO KNOW IN A PARTICULAR PLACE IN A PARTICULAR
TIME THEN IF OBJECTIVELY HE'S IN THE COURSE OF EMPLOYMENT HE HASN'T DEVIATED
THEN IT'S A COVERED LOSS. THE COURT: WHAT ABOUT THE EMPLOYEE WHO IS
DIRECTED COME AND GET YOUR TOOLS AND BRING THEM BACK AT THE END OF THE WORKDAY.
RICHARD B. RUBENSTEIN: WE VIEW THE ENTIRE COURSE OF EMPLOYMENT AND THE CONTRACTUAL
RELATIONSHIP, THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE AGAINST ALL THE
FACTS NOT JUST AGAINST WHAT HAPPENS IN ONE MOMENT AND IN A MIC IN THE RELATIONSHIP
BUT IN THE COURSE OF HIS PERFORMANCE OF HIS DUTIES HE'S CAUSED BY HIS EMPLOYER
TO GO TO HIS WORKPLACE FROM HIS HOME APPEAR THAT IS ACCUSTOM AND FREQUENT
OCCURRENCE. THEN HIS WORKPLACE MAY BE IN SOME MEASURE OR DEGREE BE THE OFFICE, THE
CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, NOT A HENRY KEIM'S CASE T DURATION OF HIS BUSINESS WITH
THAT COMPANY MAYBE NEATING. CERTAINLY APERY TECTAL. THE DEFINITION OF COMMON
ORRERY TEEN IS SOMETHING THAT ITS PREDICTABLE SOMETHING THAT IS OF A
REASONABLE DURATION AND SOMETHING THAT IS IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND IN THE CONTEXT
OF THE OVERALL RELATIONSHIP. NOW I'D LIKE TO MOVE JUST A LITTLE BIT FORWARD
FROM THIS FACTUAL SCENARIO. IF THIS COURT DOESN'T HOLD FOR THE RESPONDENT IN THIS
CASE HENRY KEIM THEN THE FLOOD INDICATES OF LITIGATION TURN A DIFFERENT WAY.
AS AN EXAMPLE THE COURT HOLD FOR THE APPEAL AND THE THAT HENRY KEIM IS AUTHORITIING
AUTHORIZED VEHICLE IN THE COURSE OF GOING FROM HIS HOME TO THE PLANT IN FORKED
RIVER. AND HIS BRAKES FAIL AND HIS COMPANY PROVIDED TRUCK AND HE PERISHES IN A
CLAIMING ACCIDENT HE'S NOT COVERED ACCORDING TO APPEAL AND THE EVEN THOUGH HE'S OPERATE
AGO COMPANY VEHICLE THAT HE HAD TO OPERATE. HE DIDN'T HAVE A CHOICE HE COULDN'T
DRIVE HIS OWN VEHICLE. HE'S USING THE VEHICLE THEY GAVE HIM THEY HAVE TO
MAINTAIN FOR HIM. JUSTICE PATTERSON: I WANT TO ASK YOU THE QUESTION THAT WAS
ASKED OF COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFF AND THAT IS WHAT ABOUT THE LAWYER WHO JUST
ASSUMED IS TRYING A COMPANY OWNED OR FIRM OWNED VEHICLE IMPORTANT THE PURPOSES OF
QUESTION AND DECIDES TO PICK UP THE FILE IN THE MORNING, A FILE THAT COULD HAVE BEEN PICKED UP THE PREVIOUS NIGHT AND I UNDERSTAND THAT'S DISTRICT FROM KEIM BUT
JUSTICE THE WORKER'S COMPENSATION ACT SPECIFICALLY DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR
COMPARATIVE N.J.S.A., IF SOMEONE MAKES AN ERROR IN JUDGMENT. JUSTICE
PATTERSON: I'M NOT ASKING COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE I'M TALKING ABOUT WHETHER
IT IS A COVERED ACCIDENT LET'S SAY AN ASSOCIATE DRIVING A LAW FIRM OWNED VEHICLE
DECIDES I'LL WAIT UNTIL TOMORROW, I'LL PICK THE FILE UP BEFORE I GO AND GETS
INTO AN ACCIDENT ON THE WAY TO THE LAW FIRM. RICHARD B. RUBENSTEIN: I
SHOULD HAVE BEEN MORE DIRECT IN MY RESPONSE. AN ASSOCIATE LAW ENFORCEMENT WHO IS
INVESTIGATED WITH THE DISCRETION TO COME TO THE OFFICE TO PICK UP A FILE, THE
BENEFIT OF THE CLIENT THAT'S BEING SERVED IS IN THE COURSE OF THEIR EMPLOYMENT.
IF THEREFORE, INTENTION WAS TO GO STRAIGHT TO COURT AND THEY FIND AS A RESULT OF
THEIR OWN ERROR THEIR OWN NEGLIGENCE THAT THEY MUST GO TO THE OFFICE TO PICK UP
A TILE. THAT TRIP IS IN THE COURSE OF EMPLOYMENT BECAUSE IT IS SPECIFICALLY
FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE CLIENT AND PROBABLY WILLINGBORO THE BILLING HOURS FOR THE
CLIENT. THE COMPANY IS EARNING MONEY OFF OF IT, THE FIRM, THUS THE RISK OF
LOSS SHOULD FALL TO THE COMPANY. HIS REALLY ABOUT WHO BEARS THE RISK OF LOSS.
YOU KNOW IF HENRY KEIM'S IPAD IF HIS COMPANY IPAD AND VAN MODE HAD BECAUSE A
LITHIUM BATTERY EXPLODED WHILE HE WAS ON HIS WAY TO FORKED RIVER. THE APPELLATE
INSTRUMENTALITY HE WAS FURNISHED WITH FOR THE USE ON THE JOB IN A VEHICLE THAT
HE WAS USING IT IN ORDER TO ADVANCE THE INTEREST OF THE EMPLOYER, THAT CASE
WOULD BE NON-COMPENSABLE. IT'S ALMOST INCOMPENSABLE THE STANDARD THEY'RE
PROCEEDING. THE REASON IT'S INCOMPREHENSIBLE BECAUSE THE ONE WE HAVE THE ONE SET
FOR THE IN THE 1979 ACCIDENT IS ENOUGH STANDARD LEAVES THE COURT ENOUGH ROOM
USING AN OBJECTIVE STANDARD AS TO WHO IS IN THE COURSE OF THEIR EMPLOYMENT AND
WHO IS NOT USING PERIMETERS THAT ARE SET FORTH VERY CLEARLY. JUSTICE
PATTERSON: SO YOU WOULD PUT THIS CASE ON THE SAME PLANE AS THE CASE IN WHICH I'M
NOT SUGGESTING THAT'S THE FACTS HERE THE EMPLOYEE HAD THE DISCRETION AS TO
WHETHER TO GO TO THE OFFICE FIRST OR WHETHER TO GO TO THE PLANT FIRST AND HAS
THE HAS THE DISCRETION TO KEEP CHEMICALS OVERNIGHT IN THE TRUCK SO THAT MONDAY
MORNING THERE COULD BE ONE TRIP TO THE PLANT AND A WEEK'S WOULD THE OF CHEMICALS
COULD STAY IN THE TRUCK, YOU PUT THOSE TWO CASES ON THE SAME PLAIN, THEY'RE
BOTH COMPENSABLE. RICHARD B. RUBENSTEIN: COMING IN THIS MORNING I THOUGHT
ABOUT IT DIFFERENTLY THAN THE LONGER YOU'RE HAD HENRY KEIM DISOHED BY POLICY AND
HELP GONE TO HIS FIRST CUSTOMER IF THEY WERE CLOSE TO HIS HOUSE IN TOMS RIVER THE
REASONING SAFE TIME AND SAVE MONEY AND THEY HAD SUFFICIENT PESTICIDE INSTEAD
OF FOG TO THE FACTORY FIRST OR COMPANY FIRST HENRY KEIM COULD THEN HAVE SUFFERED
AN ACCIDENT AND IT WOULD HAVE BEEN HELD COMPENSABLE EVEN TO THE APPELLATE
STANDARD BECAUSE HE HAD DEAF CREATED HE HAD GONE OUTSIDE THE CONTROL OF HIS
EMPLOYER. IT'S IRONIC THEY WOULD PROPOSE AN UNDER THE CONTROL OF YOUR MR. YOU'RE
AND YOU FULFILL YOUR DUTIES IT'S NON-COMPENSABLE IF HENRY DISOBEYED HIS
EMPLOYEE. JUSTICE PATTERSON: LET ME ASK IT AGAIN. ONE OF THE FAX THAT
HAS BEEN INVESTIGATED BY PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL IN THIS CASE IS THE POLICY AS
ARTICULATED BY THE SUPERVISOR THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO ALLOW THESE CHEMICALS TO STAY
IN FOR THE REASONS GIVEN OVERNIGHT STOLEN OVERHEATING, COLD, ET CETERA AND
YOU HAVE TO COME HERE FIRST TO PICK UP WHAT YOU NEED FOR THE PARTICULAR DAY OR
A COUPLE OF DAYS. SO AM I CORRECT THAT UNDER YOUR FORMULATION OF WHAT THE STANDARD
SHOULD BE THAT CASE IS NO STRONGER THAN A CASE WHERE THE EMPLOYER -- WHERE
THE EMPLOYEE CAN PICK UP THE CHEMICALS MONDAY MORNING AND THE REST OF THE TIME
JUST ABLE -- NOT REQUIRED TO GO INTO THE OFFICE BUT DOES SO. RICHARD B.
RUBENSTEIN: THE LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE IS CLEAR HE WAS OPERATING AN EMPLOYER
AUTHORIZED VEHICLE IN THE COURSE OF ACTIVITIES THAT WERE AUTHORIZED BY THE
EMPLOYER. HAD THE LEGISLATURE NOT WISHED FOR THAT TO BE COMPENSABLE THEY COULD HAVE
QUOTED THAT LANGUAGE, THEY DIDN'T. ONE OF THE REASONS THEY DIDN'T IS BECAUSE
PRE 1979 OFF PREMISES EMPLOYEES LIKE HENRY KEIM WERE COVERED BY WORKER'S
COMPENSATION, THEY REMAINED COVERED. THE 79 ACT NARROWED ACCIDENTS WHEN THEY DEALT
WITH THINGS LIKE DEVIATIONS FROM THINGS OF EMPLOYMENT OR PERSONAL COMFORT.
JUSTICE PATTERSON: TELL US IN WHAT RESPECTS DID THE 1979 ACT NARROW COMPENSABLE
ACCIDENTS, NARROW. MR. JAO: A CASE SIDED BY THIS COURT SUGGESTED THAT THE
EXCEPTIONS TO THE GOING AND COMING RULE WERE SWALLOWING UP THE ACTUAL RULE. WHERE
WORK LULL SENT A WORKER HOME WHERE AN EMPLOYEE MILLIREM PERCENT HAD AN EMPLOYEE
TRANSPORTATION. ARE A COMMUTATION TICKET BY A TRAIN WAS PAID BY AN EMPLOYER.
THE COURT: HOW. JUSTICE PATTERSON: HOW DID YOU'RE SAYING THE
1979 ACT DID NOT CHANGE THE SCENARIO ACT OF THIS CASE. HOW DID THE 1979 ACT CHANGE
THE SCOPE. RICHARD B. RUBENSTEIN: UNTIL LAST JANUARY IF YOU WERE
INJURED IN A PARKING LOT THAT WAS BY YOUR LAWYER. THAT WAS NOT A COMPENSABLE
CASE. RECENTLY THE LEGISLATURE ONCE AGAIN CHANGED SECTION 36. THEY AMENDED IT SO
EVEN MORE WORKERS WOULD BE BROUGHT WITHIN THE RUBRIC OF WORKER'S COMPENSATION
OVER RULING JUDICIAL DECISIONS LIKE HERSH AND LIKE LAPSLEY, THE LEGISLATURE
SPOKE VERY CLEAR TO THE FACTS THAT THEY WANTED EMPLOYEES TO BE COUGHED IN
CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THE RISK SHOULD BE BORNE BY THE EMPLOYER OPERATING AN EMPLOYER
BECAUSE THE EMPLOYER CONTROLLED WHERE SOMEONE PARKED, WHERE SOMEONE WALKED.
JUSTICE SOLOMON: LET ME JUST CLARIFY ONE THING. IF MR. KEIM'S OBLIGATIONS
UNDER HIS EMPLOYMENT WERE TO REPORT TO THE PLIERS' PLACE OF BUSINESS EVERY
DAY, O'CLOCK IN, IF HE NEEDS CHEMICALS GET HIM IF YOU DON'T DON'T THEN GO TO A YOUR
WORKPLACE, WOULD THAT BE COVERED OR WOULD THAT BE COMMUTING IF HE'S ON HITS WAY TO
THE EMPLOY EAR FACILITY. RICHARD B. RUBENSTEIN: IF HE'S DRIVING AN EMPLOYER
AUTHORIZED VEHICLE, A VAN THAT SAYS ABOVE ALL TERMITES PARKED IN HIS DRIVEWAY
RECOVERED I'M AFRAID ONE OF THE COSTS OF ADVERTISING THAT BUSINESS AND MAKING YOUR
EMPLOYEE GARAGE SHOULD BE THAT YOU'RE GOING TO COVER HIM WITH WORKER'S COMPENSATION
IF AND WHEN HE'S INJURED TRAVERSING A HIGHWAY. THE COURT: SHOULD BE OR
IS. RICHARD B. RUBENSTEIN: SORRY YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: SHOULD BE
OR IS. RICHARD B. RUBENSTEIN: IS. I'M SAYING MORALLY. JUSTICE
PATTERSON: YOU'RE SAYING ANYBODY WHO HAS A VEHICLE WITH AT THING ON IT AND IS
REQUIRED TO USE THAT VEHICLE FOR WORK IS -- THERE'S JUST A BROAD EXCEPTION TO THE
COMMUTING RULE WHERE THAT WESTERN BECAUSE OF THE LETTERING ON THAT VEHICLE.
RICHARD B. RUBENSTEIN: IF THEY'RE FURNISHED WITH A VEHICLE BY THEIR EMPLOYER
ODDS ARE IT'S A VEHICLE THAT'S USED FOR OFF PREMISES WORK I THINK NO ONE IS
GOING TO GIVE SOMEBODY A CAR SO THEY CAN DRIVE TO AND FROM WORK ALONE.
JUSTICE PIERRE-LOUIS: CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG I THINK YOU ANSWERED THE CHIEF'S
QUESTION EARLIER WHEN HE ASKED WHETHER AN EMPLOYEE WOULD BE REQUIRED -- IF IT WAS
A SCENARIO THAT AN EMPLOYEE WAS REQUIRED TO GO IN RAILROAD MORNING P PICK UP
SUPPLIES AND THEN RETURN IN THE EVENING TO THE EMPLOY EARS PREMISES WHETHER THAT
WOULD BE A SCENARIO THAT WOULD FALL UNDER THE COMMUTER RULE AND I THOUGHT YOU ANSWERED
THAT IF IT'S ACCUSTOM AND FREQUENT OCCURRENCE THEN THE PREMISES WOULD BE
CONSIDERED SUCH THAT THAT'S THE EMPLOYEES LABS PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT BUT THAT'S
NOT THIS CASE. RICHARD B. RUBENSTEIN: IT'S NOT THIS CASE AND IT WOULD
BE GOVERNED BY THE ACTUAL RELATIONSHIP, THE FULL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN EMPLOYEE
AND WHETHER ANOTHER EXCEPTION OR IDENTIFICATION OF WORK RELATEDNESS YOU SHOULD
SECTION THRIX APPLIED. JUSTICE PIERRE-LOUIS: BUT IN THAT SCENARIO
GOING REFERRED IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING IT COULD BE THE CASE IN THAT SCENARIO THE
EMPLOYEE WOULD BE CONSIDERED TO BE COMMUTING. RICHARD B. RUBENSTEIN: I'M
GRATEFUL FOR THE FACT THAT MY ANSWER TO MY QUESTION YOUR HONOR WOULD BE PARTICULAR
TAKE. THAT'S NOT THIS CASE BUT I WOULD AGREE THAT IF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE WAS THAT EVERY DAY HE OR SHE HAD TO PRESENT HIMSELF AND
LEAVE FOR WORK FROM HOME IN AN EMPLOYER AUTHORIZED VEHICLE THAT THERE'S AN ANSWER
THAT THIS COURT COULD READ THE COMMUTATION PORTION OF SECTION THRIX AND FIND
THAT PRIMARILY THAT EMPLOYEE WAS A COMMUTER. HOWEVER. THE COURT: LET'S
FOLLOW-UP ON JUSTICE SOLOMON'S QUESTION THEN. IF MR. KEIM HAD BEEN INSTRUCTED
COME TO WORK EVERY MORNING, START THE DAY, PUMP THE LOCK, PICK UP THE CHEMICALS
AND THEN GO OUT TO A JOB SITE, THAT BUSINESS AUTHORIZED BY THE EMPLOYER.
RICHARD B. RUBENSTEIN: IT'S BUSINESS AUTHORIZED BY THE EMPLOYER. HE'S ON THE
AUTHORIZED USE OF A VEHICLE THAT'S PROVIDED FOR HIS USE SO HE CAN BE AN OFF PREMISES
EMPLOYEE FOURTHING THE INTEREST OF THE BUSINESS AND THUS THEY TAKE ON THE RISK
OF LOSS OF THAT EMPLOY DRIVING TO AND FROM WORK. JUSTICE NORIEGA: SO IT WOULD
ON HIM BE THE EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCE WHERE HE COULD DEVIATE AND GO TO THE
SUMMER MARKET HE WOULDN'T BE COVERED AND ALL OTHER TIMES HE WOULD BE. RICHARD B.
RUBENSTEIN: IF THE STATUTE SAYS THAT TIME SPENT TRAVELING TOO OR FROM A JOB SITE
OR THE AUTHORIZED OPERATION OF A VEHICLE AND BUSINESS AUTHORIZED BY THE EMPLOYER
IS COVERED THEN IT'S COVERED BECAUSE LEGISLATURE SAYS IT'S COVERED.
JUSTICE NORIEGA: SO THE PRESENCE OF A COMPANY VEHICLE ESSENTIALLY MAKES IT ALWAYS
ON COMPANY TIME THEN. RICHARD B. RUBENSTEIN: THAT'S WHAT THE STATUTE
SAYS UNLESS HE'S USING IT FOR A PERSONAL PURPOSE IN WHICH CASE IT'S A DEVIATION.
JUSTICE PATTERSON: WHAT YOU'RE SAYING WHERE THE STATUTE SAYS IF THEY'RE
ALWAYS DRIVING A VEHICLE THEY'RE ALWAYS ON COMPANY TIME. RICHARD B.
RUBENSTEIN: THE STATUTE SAYS THAT ANY EMPLOYEE YOUTH LOSES AN EMPLOYEE
AUTHORIZED VEHICLE SHALL COMMENCE AND TERMINATE THE TIME SPENT. JUSTICE PATTERSON:
LOW DOWN. RICHARD B. RUBENSTEIN: OR THE OPERATION OF A VEHICLE ON BUSINESS
AUTHORIZED BY THE EMPLOYER. SO WE ASSUME HE HAS AN EMPLOYER AUTHORIZED VEHICLE
AND WE ASSUME FOR PURPOSES OF COMPENSABILITY THAT HE'S DOING THE WORK THAT HE'S
AUTHORIZED WHILE USING THE VEHICLE AND ANY OTHER TIME. JUSTICE PATTERSON:
HE'S COMMUTING IN A COMPANY VEHICLE HE IS ON BUSINESS AUTHORIZED BY P EMPLOYER.
RICHARD B. RUBENSTEIN: I WOULD SAY HE IS BECAUSE THE EMPLOYER IS REQUIRING
HIM TO BE IN A PARTICULAR PLACE AT A PARTICULAR TIME SO THAT HE CAN THEN DO
OFF PREMISES WORK. JUSTICE PATTERSON: ARE YOU ARGUING THAT THERE IS AN
EMPLOYER AUTHORIZED VEHICLE EXCEPTION TO GENERAL EXCEPTION TO THE COMMUTING RULE.
RICHARD B. RUBENSTEIN: YES, IT'S NOT ACTUALLY AN EXCEPTION, IT'S A PROVISION.
IT'S AN AFFIRMATIVE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE EMPLOYER TO PAY COMPENSATION TO
AN EMPLOYEE WHO WAS OPERATING AUTHORIZED VEHICLE IN THE COURSE OF AUTHORIZED
DUTIES OR BUSINESS AUTHORS. THE EMPLOYER HAS THE OPTION TO TELL SOMEONE THEY
CAN'T DRIVE TO WORK IN THE TRUCK. JUSTICE PATTERSON: AND THIS IS EVEN IF THERE
-- WHAT OTHERWISE CONSTITUTE A COPPING AND GOING SITUATION, IN OTHER WORDS, EVERYTHING
IS SIMILAR BETWEEN TWO SCENARIOS AND IN WHICH COMMUTE HE WE KNOW FROM THE
STATUTE COMMUTING IN GENERAL IS NOT WITHIN THE STATUTE. YOU'RE SAYING NO MATTER
WHAT'S GOING ON, NO MATTER HOW MANY TIMES THEY GO TO THE PARTICULAR PLACE THEY GO
EVER DAY TO THE OFFICE, EVERY DAY TO THE PLANT, THEY LEAVE FROM THE PLANT, IF THEY'VE
GOT AN EMPLOYER AUTHORIZED VEHICLE EVERYTHING IS WITHIN THE STATUTE,
EVERYTHING IS COMPENSABLE. RICHARD B. RUBENSTEIN: I'M SAYING THAT IF
YOU'RE PROVIDED WITH A EMPLOYER AUTHORIZED VEHICLE AND YOU ARE DOING SOMETHING THAT THE
EMPLOYER AUTHORIZING YOU TO DO IT THEN THE INQUIRE TO FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO
DO IS IF THERE IS INDEED AUTHORIZATION TO DO ET CETERA THEN IT'S NOT A DEVIATION.
IT'S FALSE QUARREL WITHIN THE LAST SECTION OF QUESTION THRIX. THE COURT:
DOES THAT ENCOMPASS A SITUATION WHERE THE EMPLOYER SAYS WE WORK IN OFFICE ALL
TIMES, YOU CAN HAVE THE VEHICLE, DRIVE IT IN THE MORNING, SPEND YOUR DAY THERE.
RICHARD B. RUBENSTEIN: I'M SORRY. THE COURT: I'M OFF PREMISE WORK, THE WORK
IS JUST IN THE OFFICE. YOU'VE USED AN AUTHORIZED VEHICLE AS IT QUALIFIES BUSINESS
AUTHORIZED BY THE EMPLOYER AS WELL. RICHARD B. RUBENSTEIN: IF YOU'RE A ON
PREMISE EMPLOYEE THE LAST PROVISION OF THE STATUTE SHOULD NOT NECESSARILY COVER
YOU BECAUSE IT IS DESIGNED FOR OFF PREMISES EMPLOYEES. THE COURT:
YOU HEARD US AT THE OUTSET OF THE ARGUMENT PARSE THE STATUTE. WHERE DO YOU COME
OUT ON THAT. THE APPROPRIATE READING OF THE ELEMENTS IN THE STATUTE. RICHARD B.
RUBENSTEIN: THE FINAL ELEMENT IN THE STATUTE IS THE ONLY ONE THAT I CONCERN MYSELF
WITH BECAUSE THAT'S THE ONE THAT APPLIED TO CASE. THE COURT: HELP US WITH
THE OTHERS AS WELL IN LIGHT OF YOUR SPEAKER TEASE. RICHARD B. RUBENSTEIN:
MY EXPERT TEASE HAS NEVER BEEN LOWER, YOUR HONOR. THE FIRST THING IS I THINK
TO LOOK AT WHAT CONSCIOUS TUTSES A COMMUTE WHEN WE TRY AND PARSE THROUGH WHAT
COMMUTATION IS. A COMMUTE HAS FOUR CORNERS WHEN YOU GO FROM YOUR HOME TO A SPECIFIC
PLACE WHERE YOU DO BUSINESS AND THEN YOU GO FROM THAT PLACE BACK HOME. THAT IT IS
THE COMMON UNDERSTANDING OF THE WORD COMMUTE. PEOPLE DO NOT COMMUTE IN EIGHT
CONCERNED FIGURE. THEY COMMUTE TO WORK AND THEY COMMUTE FROM WORK, THAT'S THE
WAY THE LEGISLATURE UNDERSTOOD A COMMUTATION IN 1979 BECAUSE THAT'S HOW PEOPLE
BEHAVED IN 1979 WORKING IN OFFICES AND IN FACTORS. SO I THINK FIRST WE MUST
CONCLUDE FROM OUR READING OF SECTION THRIX ANY VERSION OR COMMUTATION THAT DOES NOT
MAKE IT THROUGH FOUR CORNERS AS A TEST. THE METHAMPHETAMINE WHO HAS MORE THAN
FOUR CORNERS THE COMMUTE IS NOT SOMEBODY WHO IS TETHERED TO THEIR OFFICE THEREFORE,
WE HAVE TO LOOK TO THE ARE REST OF THE STATUTE. WHEN AN EMPLOYEE IS REQUIRED
BY THE EMPLOYER TO BE AWAY PROSECUTE THE EMPLOYERS PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT PROBABLY
DEALS WITH SPECIAL MISSION OF CASES IT DOES NOT SPEAK BROADLY. IT SPEAKS VERY
NARROWLY TO WHEN THE EMPLOYER IS REQUIRED TO BE AWAY PROSECUTE THE COURSE OF
EMPLOYMENT. IF WE SKIP DOWN TO THE END WHERE THERE IS THE BROADER DEFINITION.
THAT IT IS THE ONE THAT WAS INTENDED AS I THINK THE COURT PREVIOUSLY OBSERVED
TO COVER EMPLOYEES WHO WERE PURELY -- WHO ARE CHIEFLY OFF PREMISES EMPLOYEES,
IT'S TO GIVE THEM PROTECTION THAT THE STATUTE ALWAYS GAVE THEM AND WITH GOOD
REASON BECAUSE IT DOESN'T INVOLVE A DEVIATION. IT DOESN'T INVOLVE PERSONAL
CONFIDENT. IT DOESN'T INVOLVE ANYTHING EXCEPT DOING A TASK DIRECTLY IMPORTANT THE
EMPLOYER. JUSTICE NORIEGA: COUNSEL YOU DISAGREE WITH MS. PASQUA'S DRIPPINGS OF
HOW WE SHOULD VIEW THE STATUTE BEING TETHERED TO THE PHYSICAL PREMISES.
RICHARD B. RUBENSTEIN: IT'S NEVER BEEN MORE CLEAR TO EVERYONE WHO IS ALIVE TODAY
THAT THE DEFINITION OF A PREMISES IS EVERY CHANGING. I SHUDDER TO THINK OF
WHAT A CHANGE IN THE STATUTE AFTER THE COVID EPIDEMIC COULD BRING IN TRYING
TO BRING PEOPLE WHO WORK OUT OF HOME OFFICES UNDER THE REVIEW RIBBING OF WORKER'S
COMPENSATION. FORTUNATELY WE'RE NOT THERE YET. WHERE WE ARE IS IN A PLACE
WHERE IT'S CRYSTAL CLEAR THAT AN OFF PREMISE EMPLOYEE WAS OPERATING AN EMPLOYER
VEHICLE FURTHER THERE BUSINESS IS COVERED. I DISAGREE WITH MS. PASQUA VEHEMENTLY
AS TO WHAT IS DEFINED THAT PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT WHICH IS THE CORE OF THE
COURT'S INQUIRY. A PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT IS WHERE SOMEONE DOES THEIR JOB. NO ONE COULD
SERIOUSLY SAY THAT HENRY KEIM DID HIS JOB IN FORKED RIVER. HE DID HIS JOB
ON IN A VAN OFF I PAT INSTRUCTIONS AT VARIOUS PLACES WHERE HE ADMINISTERED CHEMICALS.
THAT WAS HIS JOB. INCIDENTAL TO HIS JOB WAS THAT ONCE IN AWHILE HE WOULD
HAVE TO SPEND FIVE MINUTES PICKING UP A CYLINDER OF CHEMICALS IN FORKED RIVER AT
HIS OWN PERIOD DRIVING EMPLOYER VEHICLE THAT WAS NOT OTHERWISE COVERED BY THE
WAY. LET'S NOT FORGET THIS MAN WAS DRIVING A CUSTOMER AT WORK THAT HAD NO
PERSONAL PROTECTION BENEFITS IF HE DOESN'T HAVE WORKERS HE'S NOT COVERED BY PIP HE
BECOMES A PUBLIC CHARGE HIS MEDICAL BILLS ARE NOT POLE BECAUSE A DON'T HOLE
THAT MY ADVERA. JUSTICE FASCIALE: IN ANSWER TO THE CHIEF'S QUESTION SENTENCE
2021 DOESN'T RESOLVE THE ISSUE ON APPEAL, SENTENCE TWO DOES NOT RESOLVE THE
ISSUE ON APPEAL, SENTENCE THREE DOES NOT RESOLVE THE ISSUE ON APPEAL BUT SECTION
4B RESOLVES THE ISSUE ON APPEAL WHICH IS OR QUOTE THE AUTHORIZED OPERATION OF A
VEHICLE ON BUSINESS AUTHORIZED BY THE EMPLOYER. RICHARD B. RUBENSTEIN:
MORE THAN AUTHORIZED YOUR HONOR, IT WAS ORDERED IT WAS COMPELLED.
JUSTICE FASCIALE: BUT THAT'S THE SECTION OF THE STATUTE YOU RELY ONTO SAY IT'S
COMPENSABLE. RICHARD B. RUBENSTEIN: I DO. JUSTICE FASCIALE: AND
ESSENTIALLY IT'S THE -- IT IS THE AUTHORIZED OPERATION OF THE BUSINESS VEHICLE
EXCEPTION TO THE PREMISES RULE OR DEFINITION. RICHARD B. RUBENSTEIN:
YES, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: OKAY. THE COURT: ANYTHING YOU WOULD LIKE TO
ADD, COUNSEL. RICHARD B. RUBENSTEIN: THANK YOU FOR HEARING
AMICUS TODAY. THE COURT: MS. PASQUA, YOU GET THE FINAL WORD. ANNE
HAMMILL PASQUA: YOUR HONOR, THE SECTION 36 IS NOT A COMMUTER RULE IT IS A PREMISES
RULE. JUSTICE PATTERSON: PLEASE SPEAK A LITTLE SLOWER. ANNE HAMMILL
PASQUA: SECTION THRIX NOT A COMPUTER RULE IT'S A PREMISES RULE. THE LEGS TORE
IS TALKING ABOUT THE EMPLOYER HE'S A PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT EXCLUDING AREAS NOT UNDER
CONTROL OF THE EMPLOYER. I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT COMMUTER IF THEY WERE TALKING
ABOUT COMMUTE IT WOULD SAY COMMUTE. THIS EXCLUDES OTHER ACTION TESTS FOR EXAMPLE
LUNCHTIME INJURIES. THE BRIGHT LINE RULE THAT MS. GILMORE MORE MENTIONED
REGARDING CONTROL THAT IS NOT THE BRIGHT LINE ROOM. THE BRIGHT LINE RULE IS WAS
THE PETITIONER PRIOR TO BE AWAY PROSECUTE THE EMPLOY EARS PREMISES IF THEY'RE
NO LONGER IN THE CONTROL OF THE EMPLOYER HE'S PREMISES A BEING AWAY FROM THE
PLEA AGREEMENT YOU THEN GO TO THE QUESTION OF WERE THEY THERE AT THE DIRECTION
OF THE EMPLOYER. WAS IT PAID TRAVEL TIME. WERE THEY IN AN AUTHORIZED VEHICLE.
IT MAKES NO SENSE OTHERWISE UNDER AMICUS ARGUMENT MR. KEIM WOULD BE COVERED
NO MATTER WHAT UNLESS HE DID A PERSONAL ERRAND THAT. FLIES IN THE FACE OF
HIS ON HIM. SHE WAS NOT COVERED DRIVING HOME BETWEEN WORK AND A NIGHTTIME TRAINING
SESSION WHEN HER SUPERVISOR SUGGESTED GO HOME EXTEND SOME TIME IN YOUR KIDS. THERE
WAS A SUGGESTION TO GO HOME. HIS ON HIM WAS NOT COVERED. THE CONTROL OUTSIDE
OF A PHYSICAL CONTROL ONLY COMES INTO PLAY WHEN THAT EMPLOYEE IS REQUIRED TO BE
AWAY FROM THE PLEA AGREEMENT. WHAT WAS THE INTENTION OF THE STATUTE. STATUTE
SECTIONS TWO, THREE AND FOUR, THEY COULD APPLY TO ON PREMISES OR OFF PREMISES
EMPLOYEE, THERE'S NO DELINEATION, IT'S POSSIBLE THAT AN ON PREMISES IS USING AN AUTHORIZED
VEHICLE FOR SOME BUSINESS PURPOSE. THERE IS NO DELINEATION THERE.
THREE AND FOUR, THIS FURTHER HIGHLIGHTS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ACCIDENTS OFF PREMISES
THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT JOB SITES, USE OF THE VEHICLE BETWEEN JOB SITES, TRAVEL
TIME BETWEEN JOB SITES T HIS WHOM LAW HELPED IS YOU KNOW PUBLISHED CASE BUT
THAT THAT IS A SITUATION OF THE LAWYER COMING FROM COURT AND GOING TO GET A
FILE AND THEN DRIVING HOME FROM THE OFFICE THAT WAS NOT COMPENSABLE. HE WAS DRIVING
AN AUTHORIZED VEHICLE PROSECUTE THE LAW OFFICE BECAUSE HE HAD TO GO THERE TO
PICK UP A FILE FOR THE NEXT DAY AND THEN HE DROVE HOME. THAT WAS NOT COVERED.
IN THIS CASE MR. KEIM IS LIKE ANY OTHER EMPLOYEE STARTING OUT HIS DAY GOING
TO WORK. HE HAD NOT YET REACHED THE PREMISE OF THE EMPLOYMENT SO HE WAS NOT
COVERED. HE WAS NOT BEING -- HE WAS NOT REQUIRED TO BE AWAY PROSECUTE THE
PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT. HE WAS NOT TRAVELING TO A JOHN SIGHT AND HE WAS NOT PAID TRAVEL
TIME. TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE UNDERLYING LEGISLATIVE INCIDENT YOU CANNOT
SAY JUST BECAUSE YOU'RE USING AUTHORIZED VEHICLE YOU'RE NOW COVERED FOR THEY GO.
THAT'S NOT WHAT THE STATUTE MEANT. THE STATUTE IS CRYSTAL CLEAR IN RULING
OUT ACCIDENTS DRIVING TO THE EMPLOY EARS PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT UNTIL THE EMPLOYER
REACHES THE PREMISE -T. THE STATUTE CODIFIES FOUR EXCEPTIONS ONLY AND THESE
ALL REQUIRE THE EMPLOYEE TO BE AWAY PROSECUTE THE PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT. TO
HOLD OTHERWISE WOULD BRING IN MILLIONS OF WORKERS INTO THE SCOPE OF COMPENSATION
THAT ARE EXCLUDED BY THE PREMISES RULE. ALL ARGUMENTS OF COMPENSABILITY DO NOT
APPLY TO KEIM AS HE WAS NOT REQUIRED TO AWAY PROSECUTE THE PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT.
THE APPLICATION OF THIS LOGIC FOLLOWS THE PLAIN LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE AS WELL AS
THE LEGISLATIVE INTENT. THE FUNDAMENTAL RULE IS THAT YOU DON'T ARRIVE UNTIL
THE PREMISE IT'S A PREMISE RULE IT'S NOT A COMMUTER RULE. THAT IS ABOUT ALL
THAT I HAVE IN RESPONSE TO THAT. IF THERE'S ANY OTHER QUESTIONS. THE COURT:
THAT YOU, COUNSEL. ANNE HAMMILL PASQUA: THAT YOU VERY MUCH YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: THAT YOU FOR ACCOMMODATING OUR SCHEDULE. WE'LL TAKE THE MATTER UNDER
ADVISEMENT.