b'Workers Compensation and J oh Site Commutes Editor\'s Note: We received this\'comings and goings" rule wouldpurposes. These employees will opinion from the law firm ofapply to theirSecond,beconsideredfixedsitus even Dun commute.if levey,and Furry in Dayton,they weresitus employees,thoughmay be reassigned to Mahanfixedthey Ohio.The findings in this docu did they overcome the "comingsajob every different construction mentto the stateandgoingsrule"sothatthemonth, week, or even day. apply specifically ofalthough other states willinjuries would still be considered Ohio, reference this case assitu sustainedin thecourseof and" s and Goings" Rule similarComingations arise.Worker Compensa arising out of their employment.Once the court decided that the Gary W. Aumantion laws may vary from state toemployees were fixed situs, then state.Fh\'.ed-Situs E eesthe"comings andgoings"rule mployOur legal counsel has recentlyTheOhioSupremeCourtapplied to their drive to work. The completed anevaluationof andecided that employees travelingcomin goings rule is a gs andtool Ohio Supreme Court decision into remote drilling sites were "fixedused to determine if injuries from thecaseof Ruckmanv.Cubbysitus" employees even though thetraffic accidents suffered by fixed D lling, Inc., 81St.3d 117drilling sites might chan on asitus em hap in the ri Ohiogeployeespened sub(1998). This case may have amonthly, weekly,or evendailycourse of and arising out of their stantial effect on the constructionbasis. In making this decision, theemployment. As arule, a general industry, so we have provided ancourtu dtthefixed situs employee injured on foc se on the fac that analysis of the case and the sta employees\'substantialworkhis way from his residence to his tusofwhetherdutiesonlyworksite and then home again is workers\'com beganafternot covered by workers\' compenpensationwillthey arrived atsationbecausetheyarenot cover the com theworksite.engaged induties. In addiwork muteacon ,Thus,eveniftion, therds met by employhazastructionanemployeeeestravelingonhighways and employee driveswasreas streets to and from work are the to and from thesignedtoasame as the gen public. eral work site.different workThe RuckmansiteeverySpecial Circumstances caseinvolvedmonth,week,H the court in Rowever,uckman whetherorday,thedecided thatthe"comingsand employees (partemployee wasgoings" rule could be overcome ofadrillingstilla "fixedby e if they can prove mployees crew)injuredsitu s"special circumstances involved in while driving toemployeeiftheir commute so that the drive remote drilling sites at the start ofthe employeehadnod towas so connected to the employuties awere entitled to partici perform outside the drilling site hement that it should be covered by workday pate in the workers\' compensationwas assigned to at that time.workers\' compensation. The court fund. TheOhio Supreme CourtThis finding will mean that con noted that special circumstances focusedontwoissueswhenstructionemployees,includingare rare but could be proven if the deciding whether the injuries sus roofingmechanics,whodriveemployee can prove that the injury ence"in tained during the commute to thestraight from their resid to awas sustained 1)the course of worksite arose in the course ofcon site with no stops onemployment" and 2) "arose from struction and arising out of their employ behalf of their employer or dutiesthe employment. ment.F the court looked atto perform along the way will be irst, whethertheseemployeeswereconsidered "fixed situs" employfixed situs employees so that theeesfor workers\'compensationContinued on page14 byGaryW .Auman'