WEBVTT 2 00:00:05.795 --> 00:00:11.494 KEIM DID NOT DEVIATE FROM ANYTHING THE EMPLOYER INSTRUCTED HIM TO DO. THERE 3 00:00:11.494 --> 00:00:16.414 WAS NOTHING PERSONAL ABOUT WHERE HE WAS, WHAT HE WAS DRIVING, WHY HE WAS GOING 4 00:00:16.414 --> 00:00:25.394 THERE OR WHEN HE WAS DRIVING THERE. ALL OF THESE WERE CONTROLLED BY HIS EMPLOYER. 5 00:00:25.394 --> 00:00:31.493 AND THEY WERE ALL ALSO FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE EMPLOYER. ALTHOUGH THE WORKER'S 6 00:00:31.493 --> 00:00:36.866 COMPENSATION ACT IS TO BE LIBERALLY CONSTRUED IN FAVOR OF COMPENSABILITY THIS 7 00:00:36.866 --> 00:00:41.989 COURT NEED ONLY APPLY THE PLAIN LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE TO PROVIDE HENRY WITH 8 00:00:41.989 --> 00:00:48.119 BENEFITS. HENRY WAS AN OFFICE PREMISES EMPLOYEE OING A COMPANY VEHICLE ON BUSINESS 9 00:00:48.119 --> 00:00:53.009 NOT ONLY AUTHORIZED BUT DIRECTED BY HIS EMPLOYER FALLING DIRECTLY WITHIN THE 10 00:00:53.009 --> 00:00:59.036 STATUTE. THE FACT THAT THE 1979 AMENDMENT WAS ENACTED TO CURTAIL BENEFITS FOR 11 00:00:59.036 --> 00:01:04.433 INJURIES SUSTAINED ON LOCATIONS OTHER THAN THE EMPLOYER'S PREMISE THE BASIC 12 00:01:04.433 --> 00:01:09.352 PATTERNS AND OBJECTS ADVERTISE OF THE ACT REMAINED UNCHANGED. IF THE EMPLOYEE IS 13 00:01:09.352 --> 00:01:14.277 INJURED WHILE \ENGAGED\GAUGED IN AN ACTIVITY SPECIFICALLY DIRECTED BY HIS EMPLOYER 14 00:01:14.277 --> 00:01:19.050 WHICH IS NOT PERSONAL IN NATURE IT IS COMPREHENSIVE. HENRY WAS SERVING THE 15 00:01:19.050 --> 00:01:23.558 NEEDS OF AND THE REQUIREMENTS OF HIS EMPLOYER WHEN HE WAS INVOLVED IN THIS 16 00:01:23.558 --> 00:01:28.608 ACCIDENT AND AS SUCH HE IS ENTITLED TO BENEFITS UNDER THE STATUTE THANK YOU. 17 00:01:28.608 --> 00:01:47.211 THE COURT: WELL UNDER TEN MINUTES. EXCELLENT. MR. RUBENSTEIN SEEN. 18 00:01:47.211 --> 00:01:49.711 RICHARD B. RUBENSTEIN: BATTING NEARLY CLEAN UP GIVES ME THE OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND 19 00:01:49.711 --> 00:01:55.410 TO MR. SOME THINGS THAT TAKE MEDICAL AND THE SAID THAT MAY NOT BE CLEAR BEFORE 20 00:01:55.410 --> 00:02:02.412 THE COURT. MY ADVERSARY MADE THE PROP IS THAT THERE WAS A CHANGE IN THE LAW, 21 00:02:02.412 --> 00:02:08.867 THAT THE FLOOD GATES OF LITIGATION WOULD ANTICIPATE. FAR BE IT FOR ME TO SPEAK 22 00:02:08.867 --> 00:02:14.369 ONLY TO PERSONAL EXPERIENCE BUT AS A PRACTITIONER FOR 39 YEARS IN THE DIVISION OF 23 00:02:14.369 --> 00:02:19.067 WORKER'S COMPENSATION. I CAN TELL YOU THAT THE CURRENT STATE OF THE LAW IS 24 00:02:19.067 --> 00:02:23.382 DAMAGELY AS THE STATUTE HOLDS. ABOUT AN EMPLOYEE WHO OPERATES AN EMPLOYER 25 00:02:23.382 --> 00:02:26.418 AUTHORIZED VEHICLE IN THE DIRECT COURSE OF EMPLOYMENT FOR THE BENEFIT AND AT THE 26 00:02:26.418 --> 00:02:31.983 BEHEST OF THEIR EMPLOYER HAS ALWAYS BEEN CONSIDERED TO BE THE BENEFICIARY OF THE 27 00:02:31.983 --> 00:02:37.143 WORKER'S COMPENSATION ACT. IN 2005 I WAS VISITED BY A NAME ONLY OTHERS CAME 28 00:02:37.143 --> 00:02:41.959 TO SEE ME WITH AN POLICE REPORT AND DETESTER HER HUSBAND HAD YOU BEEN KILLED 29 00:02:41.959 --> 00:02:49.579 WORKING FOR EMPLOYMENT FRITS I AND SON VCC A. DROVE HIS TRUCK HOME EVERY NYHAMMER 30 00:02:49.579 --> 00:02:55.817 JUST AS HENRY KEIM DID. HE WAS ASKED BY HIS EMPLOYER VISIT A PREMISES THAT HAD 31 00:02:55.817 --> 00:03:00.109 AN OLD AIR CONDITION OTHER UNIT. HE HAD TO GET A DIFFERENT HOSE THAN THE KIND 32 00:03:00.109 --> 00:03:06.552 MOUNTED IN HIS STRUCK. SO HE HAD TO GO TO THE EMPLOYMENT PLACE, HIS ACTUAL 33 00:03:06.552 --> 00:03:11.038 PLANT AND ON THE WAY HE WAS STRUCK BY A DRUNK DRIVER AND HE WAS KILLED LEAVING 34 00:03:11.038 --> 00:03:15.088 A WIDOW AND THREE CHILDREN. HE HAD A LETTER FROM LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY 35 00:03:15.088 --> 00:03:19.134 ABOUT THREE WEEKS LATER SAYING THAT THEY REGRETTED THE DECISION THEY HAD TO 36 00:03:19.134 --> 00:03:23.610 DENY THE CASE UNDER SECTION THRIX UNDER THE WORKER'S COMPENSATION ACT BECAUSE 37 00:03:23.610 --> 00:03:27.742 HE WAS ON HIS WAY TO WORK AND HADN'T YET ARRIVED. I FILED A CLAIM PETITION, 38 00:03:27.742 --> 00:03:33.301 I APPEARED BEFORE A JUDGE AND THE JUDGE OF COMPENSATION USING A COMMON SENSE 39 00:03:33.301 --> 00:03:39.089 READING OF SECTION 36 OF THE ACT DETERMINED DURING THE FIRST CONFERENCE THAT THE 40 00:03:39.089 --> 00:03:44.916 ACTUAL STANDARD EMPLOYED IN THE ACT APPLIED THE WORKER'S COMPENSATION BENEFITS TO 41 00:03:44.916 --> 00:03:48.426 THE DEPARTMENT AND THE, THAT INDEED HIS OPERATION OF AN AUTHORIZED VEHICLE EVEN 42 00:03:48.426 --> 00:03:55.314 THOUGH HE WAS GOING FROM HOME TO THE PLANT WAS A COVERED ACCIDENT. I'LL NEVER 43 00:03:55.314 --> 00:03:59.628 FORGET READING THE LETTER FROM LIBERTY MUTUAL WHICH WAS WRITTEN ON DECEMBER 44 00:03:59.628 --> 00:04:06.763 21, 2005 WE'RE SORRY FOR DENYING YOUR CLAIM BUT WE WISH YOU AND YOUR FAMILY A MERRY 45 00:04:06.763 --> 00:04:11.349 CHRISTMAS, THE LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY. THIS IS NOT A COLD AND HEART 46 00:04:11.349 --> 00:04:16.742 LESS ACT. IT'S A BENEVOLENT BENEFIT I HAVE SENT AND REMEDIAL ACT. IT COVERED 47 00:04:16.742 --> 00:04:20.700 THE RODGERS FAMILY BECAUSE THE STATUTE SAID IT SHOULD. JUSTICE SOLOMON: 48 00:04:20.700 --> 00:04:29.839 ARE THERE ANY REPORTED CASES LIKE THE ONE YOU JUST CITED. RICHARD B. RUBENSTEIN: 49 00:04:29.839 --> 00:04:34.423 THERE'S NEVER BEEN A REPORTED CASE. WHEN MR. PASS QUA SAID THERE'S NEVER BEEN 50 00:04:34.423 --> 00:04:39.973 A CASE OLDING FOR THE PETITIONER THAT'S BECAUSE NO ONE HAD THE TEMERITY OF THE 51 00:04:39.973 --> 00:04:42.494 TO CONTEST IT. THE COURT: WHAT IS THE CURRENT PRACTICE WITH RESPECT TO 52 00:04:42.494 --> 00:04:46.808 CONSTRUCTION WORKERS, YOU HEARD A NUMBER OF THE HYPOS. MR. JAO: THERE'S 53 00:04:46.808 --> 00:04:50.904 AN OBJECTIVE STANDARD IF THE CONSTRUCTION WORKERS IS OPERATING AN EMPLOYER 54 00:04:50.904 --> 00:04:55.437 EAR PROVIDED VEHICLE AND IS IN THE COURSE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT AND HE IS CAUSED BY THE 55 00:04:55.437 --> 00:05:00.902 EMPLOYEES EDICT OR REQUEST OR CONTROL TO KNOW IN A PARTICULAR PLACE IN A PARTICULAR 56 00:05:00.902 --> 00:05:04.730 TIME THEN IF OBJECTIVELY HE'S IN THE COURSE OF EMPLOYMENT HE HASN'T DEVIATED 57 00:05:04.730 --> 00:05:09.593 THEN IT'S A COVERED LOSS. THE COURT: WHAT ABOUT THE EMPLOYEE WHO IS 58 00:05:09.593 --> 00:05:15.318 DIRECTED COME AND GET YOUR TOOLS AND BRING THEM BACK AT THE END OF THE WORKDAY. 59 00:05:15.318 --> 00:05:17.721 RICHARD B. RUBENSTEIN: WE VIEW THE ENTIRE COURSE OF EMPLOYMENT AND THE CONTRACTUAL 60 00:05:17.721 --> 00:05:21.753 RELATIONSHIP, THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE AGAINST ALL THE 61 00:05:21.753 --> 00:05:28.426 FACTS NOT JUST AGAINST WHAT HAPPENS IN ONE MOMENT AND IN A MIC IN THE RELATIONSHIP 62 00:05:28.426 --> 00:05:32.133 BUT IN THE COURSE OF HIS PERFORMANCE OF HIS DUTIES HE'S CAUSED BY HIS EMPLOYER 63 00:05:32.133 --> 00:05:38.064 TO GO TO HIS WORKPLACE FROM HIS HOME APPEAR THAT IS ACCUSTOM AND FREQUENT 64 00:05:38.064 --> 00:05:45.374 OCCURRENCE. THEN HIS WORKPLACE MAY BE IN SOME MEASURE OR DEGREE BE THE OFFICE, THE 65 00:05:45.374 --> 00:05:51.177 CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, NOT A HENRY KEIM'S CASE T DURATION OF HIS BUSINESS WITH 66 00:05:51.177 --> 00:05:55.778 THAT COMPANY MAYBE NEATING. CERTAINLY APERY TECTAL. THE DEFINITION OF COMMON 67 00:05:55.778 --> 00:06:01.488 ORRERY TEEN IS SOMETHING THAT ITS PREDICTABLE SOMETHING THAT IS OF A 68 00:06:01.488 --> 00:06:05.409 REASONABLE DURATION AND SOMETHING THAT IS IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND IN THE CONTEXT 69 00:06:05.409 --> 00:06:10.135 OF THE OVERALL RELATIONSHIP. NOW I'D LIKE TO MOVE JUST A LITTLE BIT FORWARD 70 00:06:10.135 --> 00:06:15.849 FROM THIS FACTUAL SCENARIO. IF THIS COURT DOESN'T HOLD FOR THE RESPONDENT IN THIS 71 00:06:15.849 --> 00:06:19.420 CASE HENRY KEIM THEN THE FLOOD INDICATES OF LITIGATION TURN A DIFFERENT WAY. 72 00:06:19.420 --> 00:06:24.240 AS AN EXAMPLE THE COURT HOLD FOR THE APPEAL AND THE THAT HENRY KEIM IS AUTHORITIING 73 00:06:24.240 --> 00:06:31.238 AUTHORIZED VEHICLE IN THE COURSE OF GOING FROM HIS HOME TO THE PLANT IN FORKED 74 00:06:31.238 --> 00:06:37.952 RIVER. AND HIS BRAKES FAIL AND HIS COMPANY PROVIDED TRUCK AND HE PERISHES IN A 75 00:06:37.952 --> 00:06:41.517 CLAIMING ACCIDENT HE'S NOT COVERED ACCORDING TO APPEAL AND THE EVEN THOUGH HE'S OPERATE 76 00:06:41.517 --> 00:06:44.590 AGO COMPANY VEHICLE THAT HE HAD TO OPERATE. HE DIDN'T HAVE A CHOICE HE COULDN'T 77 00:06:44.590 --> 00:06:48.740 DRIVE HIS OWN VEHICLE. HE'S USING THE VEHICLE THEY GAVE HIM THEY HAVE TO 78 00:06:48.740 --> 00:06:51.580 MAINTAIN FOR HIM. JUSTICE PATTERSON: I WANT TO ASK YOU THE QUESTION THAT WAS 79 00:06:51.580 --> 00:06:57.916 ASKED OF COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFF AND THAT IS WHAT ABOUT THE LAWYER WHO JUST 80 00:06:57.916 --> 00:07:02.451 ASSUMED IS TRYING A COMPANY OWNED OR FIRM OWNED VEHICLE IMPORTANT THE PURPOSES OF 81 00:07:02.451 --> 00:07:06.830 QUESTION AND DECIDES TO PICK UP THE FILE IN THE MORNING, A FILE THAT COULD HAVE BEEN 82 00:07:06.830 --> 00:07:11.undefined PICKED UP THE PREVIOUS NIGHT AND I UNDERSTAND THAT'S DISTRICT FROM KEIM BUT 84 00:07:15.494 --> 00:07:18.564 JUSTICE THE WORKER'S COMPENSATION ACT SPECIFICALLY DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR 85 00:07:18.564 --> 00:07:22.286 COMPARATIVE N.J.S.A., IF SOMEONE MAKES AN ERROR IN JUDGMENT. JUSTICE 86 00:07:22.286 --> 00:07:26.305 PATTERSON: I'M NOT ASKING COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE I'M TALKING ABOUT WHETHER 87 00:07:26.305 --> 00:07:34.298 IT IS A COVERED ACCIDENT LET'S SAY AN ASSOCIATE DRIVING A LAW FIRM OWNED VEHICLE 88 00:07:34.298 --> 00:07:37.699 DECIDES I'LL WAIT UNTIL TOMORROW, I'LL PICK THE FILE UP BEFORE I GO AND GETS 89 00:07:37.699 --> 00:07:41.527 INTO AN ACCIDENT ON THE WAY TO THE LAW FIRM. RICHARD B. RUBENSTEIN: I 90 00:07:41.527 --> 00:07:44.496 SHOULD HAVE BEEN MORE DIRECT IN MY RESPONSE. AN ASSOCIATE LAW ENFORCEMENT WHO IS 91 00:07:44.496 --> 00:07:47.363 INVESTIGATED WITH THE DISCRETION TO COME TO THE OFFICE TO PICK UP A FILE, THE 92 00:07:47.363 --> 00:07:52.600 BENEFIT OF THE CLIENT THAT'S BEING SERVED IS IN THE COURSE OF THEIR EMPLOYMENT. 93 00:07:52.600 --> 00:07:57.286 IF THEREFORE, INTENTION WAS TO GO STRAIGHT TO COURT AND THEY FIND AS A RESULT OF 94 00:07:57.286 --> 00:08:00.829 THEIR OWN ERROR THEIR OWN NEGLIGENCE THAT THEY MUST GO TO THE OFFICE TO PICK UP 95 00:08:00.829 --> 00:08:05.535 A TILE. THAT TRIP IS IN THE COURSE OF EMPLOYMENT BECAUSE IT IS SPECIFICALLY 96 00:08:05.535 --> 00:08:09.034 FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE CLIENT AND PROBABLY WILLINGBORO THE BILLING HOURS FOR THE 97 00:08:09.034 --> 00:08:13.299 CLIENT. THE COMPANY IS EARNING MONEY OFF OF IT, THE FIRM, THUS THE RISK OF 98 00:08:13.299 --> 00:08:18.666 LOSS SHOULD FALL TO THE COMPANY. HIS REALLY ABOUT WHO BEARS THE RISK OF LOSS. 99 00:08:18.666 --> 00:08:26.556 YOU KNOW IF HENRY KEIM'S IPAD IF HIS COMPANY IPAD AND VAN MODE HAD BECAUSE A 100 00:08:26.556 --> 00:08:32.465 LITHIUM BATTERY EXPLODED WHILE HE WAS ON HIS WAY TO FORKED RIVER. THE APPELLATE 101 00:08:32.465 --> 00:08:37.164 INSTRUMENTALITY HE WAS FURNISHED WITH FOR THE USE ON THE JOB IN A VEHICLE THAT 102 00:08:37.164 --> 00:08:41.766 HE WAS USING IT IN ORDER TO ADVANCE THE INTEREST OF THE EMPLOYER, THAT CASE 103 00:08:41.766 --> 00:08:46.050 WOULD BE NON-COMPENSABLE. IT'S ALMOST INCOMPENSABLE THE STANDARD THEY'RE 104 00:08:46.050 --> 00:08:50.336 PROCEEDING. THE REASON IT'S INCOMPREHENSIBLE BECAUSE THE ONE WE HAVE THE ONE SET 105 00:08:50.336 --> 00:08:58.136 FOR THE IN THE 1979 ACCIDENT IS ENOUGH STANDARD LEAVES THE COURT ENOUGH ROOM 106 00:08:58.136 --> 00:09:01.289 USING AN OBJECTIVE STANDARD AS TO WHO IS IN THE COURSE OF THEIR EMPLOYMENT AND 107 00:09:01.289 --> 00:09:05.443 WHO IS NOT USING PERIMETERS THAT ARE SET FORTH VERY CLEARLY. JUSTICE 108 00:09:05.443 --> 00:09:11.026 PATTERSON: SO YOU WOULD PUT THIS CASE ON THE SAME PLANE AS THE CASE IN WHICH I'M 109 00:09:11.026 --> 00:09:17.671 NOT SUGGESTING THAT'S THE FACTS HERE THE EMPLOYEE HAD THE DISCRETION AS TO 110 00:09:17.671 --> 00:09:22.610 WHETHER TO GO TO THE OFFICE FIRST OR WHETHER TO GO TO THE PLANT FIRST AND HAS 111 00:09:22.610 --> 00:09:29.287 THE HAS THE DISCRETION TO KEEP CHEMICALS OVERNIGHT IN THE TRUCK SO THAT MONDAY 112 00:09:29.287 --> 00:09:34.009 MORNING THERE COULD BE ONE TRIP TO THE PLANT AND A WEEK'S WOULD THE OF CHEMICALS 113 00:09:34.009 --> 00:09:39.571 COULD STAY IN THE TRUCK, YOU PUT THOSE TWO CASES ON THE SAME PLAIN, THEY'RE 114 00:09:39.571 --> 00:09:44.165 BOTH COMPENSABLE. RICHARD B. RUBENSTEIN: COMING IN THIS MORNING I THOUGHT 115 00:09:44.165 --> 00:09:50.293 ABOUT IT DIFFERENTLY THAN THE LONGER YOU'RE HAD HENRY KEIM DISOHED BY POLICY AND 116 00:09:50.293 --> 00:09:55.573 HELP GONE TO HIS FIRST CUSTOMER IF THEY WERE CLOSE TO HIS HOUSE IN TOMS RIVER THE 117 00:09:55.573 --> 00:09:59.702 REASONING SAFE TIME AND SAVE MONEY AND THEY HAD SUFFICIENT PESTICIDE INSTEAD 118 00:09:59.702 --> 00:10:04.725 OF FOG TO THE FACTORY FIRST OR COMPANY FIRST HENRY KEIM COULD THEN HAVE SUFFERED 119 00:10:04.725 --> 00:10:09.875 AN ACCIDENT AND IT WOULD HAVE BEEN HELD COMPENSABLE EVEN TO THE APPELLATE 120 00:10:09.875 --> 00:10:13.584 STANDARD BECAUSE HE HAD DEAF CREATED HE HAD GONE OUTSIDE THE CONTROL OF HIS 121 00:10:13.584 --> 00:10:18.328 EMPLOYER. IT'S IRONIC THEY WOULD PROPOSE AN UNDER THE CONTROL OF YOUR MR. YOU'RE 122 00:10:18.328 --> 00:10:24.670 AND YOU FULFILL YOUR DUTIES IT'S NON-COMPENSABLE IF HENRY DISOBEYED HIS 123 00:10:24.670 --> 00:10:29.139 EMPLOYEE. JUSTICE PATTERSON: LET ME ASK IT AGAIN. ONE OF THE FAX THAT 124 00:10:29.139 --> 00:10:33.325 HAS BEEN INVESTIGATED BY PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL IN THIS CASE IS THE POLICY AS 125 00:10:33.325 --> 00:10:39.269 ARTICULATED BY THE SUPERVISOR THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO ALLOW THESE CHEMICALS TO STAY 126 00:10:39.269 --> 00:10:44.042 IN FOR THE REASONS GIVEN OVERNIGHT STOLEN OVERHEATING, COLD, ET CETERA AND 127 00:10:44.042 --> 00:10:48.779 YOU HAVE TO COME HERE FIRST TO PICK UP WHAT YOU NEED FOR THE PARTICULAR DAY OR 128 00:10:48.779 --> 00:10:54.579 A COUPLE OF DAYS. SO AM I CORRECT THAT UNDER YOUR FORMULATION OF WHAT THE STANDARD 129 00:10:54.579 --> 00:11:03.947 SHOULD BE THAT CASE IS NO STRONGER THAN A CASE WHERE THE EMPLOYER -- WHERE 130 00:11:03.947 --> 00:11:09.558 THE EMPLOYEE CAN PICK UP THE CHEMICALS MONDAY MORNING AND THE REST OF THE TIME 131 00:11:09.558 --> 00:11:14.382 JUST ABLE -- NOT REQUIRED TO GO INTO THE OFFICE BUT DOES SO. RICHARD B. 132 00:11:14.382 --> 00:11:17.779 RUBENSTEIN: THE LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE IS CLEAR HE WAS OPERATING AN EMPLOYER 133 00:11:17.779 --> 00:11:22.055 AUTHORIZED VEHICLE IN THE COURSE OF ACTIVITIES THAT WERE AUTHORIZED BY THE 134 00:11:22.055 --> 00:11:25.646 EMPLOYER. HAD THE LEGISLATURE NOT WISHED FOR THAT TO BE COMPENSABLE THEY COULD HAVE 135 00:11:25.646 --> 00:11:30.684 QUOTED THAT LANGUAGE, THEY DIDN'T. ONE OF THE REASONS THEY DIDN'T IS BECAUSE 136 00:11:30.684 --> 00:11:37.803 PRE 1979 OFF PREMISES EMPLOYEES LIKE HENRY KEIM WERE COVERED BY WORKER'S 137 00:11:37.803 --> 00:11:44.922 COMPENSATION, THEY REMAINED COVERED. THE 79 ACT NARROWED ACCIDENTS WHEN THEY DEALT 138 00:11:44.922 --> 00:11:49.959 WITH THINGS LIKE DEVIATIONS FROM THINGS OF EMPLOYMENT OR PERSONAL COMFORT. 139 00:11:49.959 --> 00:11:57.095 JUSTICE PATTERSON: TELL US IN WHAT RESPECTS DID THE 1979 ACT NARROW COMPENSABLE 140 00:11:57.095 --> 00:12:03.310 ACCIDENTS, NARROW. MR. JAO: A CASE SIDED BY THIS COURT SUGGESTED THAT THE 141 00:12:03.310 --> 00:12:09.049 EXCEPTIONS TO THE GOING AND COMING RULE WERE SWALLOWING UP THE ACTUAL RULE. WHERE 142 00:12:09.049 --> 00:12:14.477 WORK LULL SENT A WORKER HOME WHERE AN EMPLOYEE MILLIREM PERCENT HAD AN EMPLOYEE 143 00:12:14.477 --> 00:12:19.985 TRANSPORTATION. ARE A COMMUTATION TICKET BY A TRAIN WAS PAID BY AN EMPLOYER. 144 00:12:19.985 --> 00:12:23.249 THE COURT: HOW. JUSTICE PATTERSON: HOW DID YOU'RE SAYING THE 145 00:12:23.249 --> 00:12:32.548 1979 ACT DID NOT CHANGE THE SCENARIO ACT OF THIS CASE. HOW DID THE 1979 ACT CHANGE 146 00:12:32.548 --> 00:12:36.661 THE SCOPE. RICHARD B. RUBENSTEIN: UNTIL LAST JANUARY IF YOU WERE 147 00:12:36.661 --> 00:12:41.670 INJURED IN A PARKING LOT THAT WAS BY YOUR LAWYER. THAT WAS NOT A COMPENSABLE 148 00:12:41.670 --> 00:12:49.290 CASE. RECENTLY THE LEGISLATURE ONCE AGAIN CHANGED SECTION 36. THEY AMENDED IT SO 149 00:12:49.290 --> 00:12:52.533 EVEN MORE WORKERS WOULD BE BROUGHT WITHIN THE RUBRIC OF WORKER'S COMPENSATION 150 00:12:52.533 --> 00:13:00.423 OVER RULING JUDICIAL DECISIONS LIKE HERSH AND LIKE LAPSLEY, THE LEGISLATURE 151 00:13:00.423 --> 00:13:04.165 SPOKE VERY CLEAR TO THE FACTS THAT THEY WANTED EMPLOYEES TO BE COUGHED IN 152 00:13:04.165 --> 00:13:07.279 CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THE RISK SHOULD BE BORNE BY THE EMPLOYER OPERATING AN EMPLOYER 153 00:13:07.279 --> 00:13:13.083 BECAUSE THE EMPLOYER CONTROLLED WHERE SOMEONE PARKED, WHERE SOMEONE WALKED. 154 00:13:13.083 --> 00:13:17.999 JUSTICE SOLOMON: LET ME JUST CLARIFY ONE THING. IF MR. KEIM'S OBLIGATIONS 155 00:13:17.999 --> 00:13:23.499 UNDER HIS EMPLOYMENT WERE TO REPORT TO THE PLIERS' PLACE OF BUSINESS EVERY 156 00:13:23.499 --> 00:13:32.125 DAY, O'CLOCK IN, IF HE NEEDS CHEMICALS GET HIM IF YOU DON'T DON'T THEN GO TO A YOUR 157 00:13:32.125 --> 00:13:36.895 WORKPLACE, WOULD THAT BE COVERED OR WOULD THAT BE COMMUTING IF HE'S ON HITS WAY TO 158 00:13:36.895 --> 00:13:40.279 THE EMPLOY EAR FACILITY. RICHARD B. RUBENSTEIN: IF HE'S DRIVING AN EMPLOYER 159 00:13:40.279 --> 00:13:46.963 AUTHORIZED VEHICLE, A VAN THAT SAYS ABOVE ALL TERMITES PARKED IN HIS DRIVEWAY 160 00:13:46.963 --> 00:13:51.443 RECOVERED I'M AFRAID ONE OF THE COSTS OF ADVERTISING THAT BUSINESS AND MAKING YOUR 161 00:13:51.443 --> 00:13:54.659 EMPLOYEE GARAGE SHOULD BE THAT YOU'RE GOING TO COVER HIM WITH WORKER'S COMPENSATION 162 00:13:54.659 --> 00:14:00.333 IF AND WHEN HE'S INJURED TRAVERSING A HIGHWAY. THE COURT: SHOULD BE OR 163 00:14:00.333 --> 00:14:02.949 IS. RICHARD B. RUBENSTEIN: SORRY YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: SHOULD BE 164 00:14:02.949 --> 00:14:07.548 OR IS. RICHARD B. RUBENSTEIN: IS. I'M SAYING MORALLY. JUSTICE 165 00:14:07.548 --> 00:14:13.138 PATTERSON: YOU'RE SAYING ANYBODY WHO HAS A VEHICLE WITH AT THING ON IT AND IS 166 00:14:13.138 --> 00:14:20.841 REQUIRED TO USE THAT VEHICLE FOR WORK IS -- THERE'S JUST A BROAD EXCEPTION TO THE 167 00:14:20.841 --> 00:14:27.086 COMMUTING RULE WHERE THAT WESTERN BECAUSE OF THE LETTERING ON THAT VEHICLE. 168 00:14:27.086 --> 00:14:32.214 RICHARD B. RUBENSTEIN: IF THEY'RE FURNISHED WITH A VEHICLE BY THEIR EMPLOYER 169 00:14:32.214 --> 00:14:39.029 ODDS ARE IT'S A VEHICLE THAT'S USED FOR OFF PREMISES WORK I THINK NO ONE IS 170 00:14:39.029 --> 00:14:44.494 GOING TO GIVE SOMEBODY A CAR SO THEY CAN DRIVE TO AND FROM WORK ALONE. 171 00:14:44.494 --> 00:14:46.463 JUSTICE PIERRE-LOUIS: CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG I THINK YOU ANSWERED THE CHIEF'S 172 00:14:46.463 --> 00:14:49.853 QUESTION EARLIER WHEN HE ASKED WHETHER AN EMPLOYEE WOULD BE REQUIRED -- IF IT WAS 173 00:14:49.853 --> 00:14:54.169 A SCENARIO THAT AN EMPLOYEE WAS REQUIRED TO GO IN RAILROAD MORNING P PICK UP 174 00:14:54.169 --> 00:14:59.003 SUPPLIES AND THEN RETURN IN THE EVENING TO THE EMPLOY EARS PREMISES WHETHER THAT 175 00:14:59.003 --> 00:15:03.681 WOULD BE A SCENARIO THAT WOULD FALL UNDER THE COMMUTER RULE AND I THOUGHT YOU ANSWERED 176 00:15:03.681 --> 00:15:09.041 THAT IF IT'S ACCUSTOM AND FREQUENT OCCURRENCE THEN THE PREMISES WOULD BE 177 00:15:09.041 --> 00:15:14.803 CONSIDERED SUCH THAT THAT'S THE EMPLOYEES LABS PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT BUT THAT'S 178 00:15:14.803 --> 00:15:17.835 NOT THIS CASE. RICHARD B. RUBENSTEIN: IT'S NOT THIS CASE AND IT WOULD 179 00:15:17.835 --> 00:15:21.520 BE GOVERNED BY THE ACTUAL RELATIONSHIP, THE FULL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN EMPLOYEE 180 00:15:21.520 --> 00:15:30.469 AND WHETHER ANOTHER EXCEPTION OR IDENTIFICATION OF WORK RELATEDNESS YOU SHOULD 181 00:15:30.469 --> 00:15:36.370 SECTION THRIX APPLIED. JUSTICE PIERRE-LOUIS: BUT IN THAT SCENARIO 182 00:15:36.370 --> 00:15:41.654 GOING REFERRED IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING IT COULD BE THE CASE IN THAT SCENARIO THE 183 00:15:41.654 --> 00:15:44.583 EMPLOYEE WOULD BE CONSIDERED TO BE COMMUTING. RICHARD B. RUBENSTEIN: I'M 184 00:15:44.583 --> 00:15:49.055 GRATEFUL FOR THE FACT THAT MY ANSWER TO MY QUESTION YOUR HONOR WOULD BE PARTICULAR 185 00:15:49.055 --> 00:15:53.600 TAKE. THAT'S NOT THIS CASE BUT I WOULD AGREE THAT IF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN 186 00:15:53.600 --> 00:15:58.812 EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE WAS THAT EVERY DAY HE OR SHE HAD TO PRESENT HIMSELF AND 187 00:15:58.812 --> 00:16:04.843 LEAVE FOR WORK FROM HOME IN AN EMPLOYER AUTHORIZED VEHICLE THAT THERE'S AN ANSWER 188 00:16:04.843 --> 00:16:10.451 THAT THIS COURT COULD READ THE COMMUTATION PORTION OF SECTION THRIX AND FIND 189 00:16:10.451 --> 00:16:15.314 THAT PRIMARILY THAT EMPLOYEE WAS A COMMUTER. HOWEVER. THE COURT: LET'S 190 00:16:15.314 --> 00:16:19.830 FOLLOW-UP ON JUSTICE SOLOMON'S QUESTION THEN. IF MR. KEIM HAD BEEN INSTRUCTED 191 00:16:19.830 --> 00:16:24.393 COME TO WORK EVERY MORNING, START THE DAY, PUMP THE LOCK, PICK UP THE CHEMICALS 192 00:16:24.393 --> 00:16:30.885 AND THEN GO OUT TO A JOB SITE, THAT BUSINESS AUTHORIZED BY THE EMPLOYER. 193 00:16:30.885 --> 00:16:32.950 RICHARD B. RUBENSTEIN: IT'S BUSINESS AUTHORIZED BY THE EMPLOYER. HE'S ON THE 194 00:16:32.950 --> 00:16:38.759 AUTHORIZED USE OF A VEHICLE THAT'S PROVIDED FOR HIS USE SO HE CAN BE AN OFF PREMISES 195 00:16:38.759 --> 00:16:42.923 EMPLOYEE FOURTHING THE INTEREST OF THE BUSINESS AND THUS THEY TAKE ON THE RISK 196 00:16:42.923 --> 00:16:47.331 OF LOSS OF THAT EMPLOY DRIVING TO AND FROM WORK. JUSTICE NORIEGA: SO IT WOULD 197 00:16:47.331 --> 00:16:52.073 ON HIM BE THE EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCE WHERE HE COULD DEVIATE AND GO TO THE 198 00:16:52.073 --> 00:16:57.175 SUMMER MARKET HE WOULDN'T BE COVERED AND ALL OTHER TIMES HE WOULD BE. RICHARD B. 199 00:16:57.175 --> 00:17:00.334 RUBENSTEIN: IF THE STATUTE SAYS THAT TIME SPENT TRAVELING TOO OR FROM A JOB SITE 200 00:17:00.334 --> 00:17:04.103 OR THE AUTHORIZED OPERATION OF A VEHICLE AND BUSINESS AUTHORIZED BY THE EMPLOYER 201 00:17:04.103 --> 00:17:08.989 IS COVERED THEN IT'S COVERED BECAUSE LEGISLATURE SAYS IT'S COVERED. 202 00:17:08.989 --> 00:17:13.664 JUSTICE NORIEGA: SO THE PRESENCE OF A COMPANY VEHICLE ESSENTIALLY MAKES IT ALWAYS 203 00:17:13.664 --> 00:17:17.827 ON COMPANY TIME THEN. RICHARD B. RUBENSTEIN: THAT'S WHAT THE STATUTE 204 00:17:17.827 --> 00:17:23.586 SAYS UNLESS HE'S USING IT FOR A PERSONAL PURPOSE IN WHICH CASE IT'S A DEVIATION. 205 00:17:23.586 --> 00:17:26.213 JUSTICE PATTERSON: WHAT YOU'RE SAYING WHERE THE STATUTE SAYS IF THEY'RE 206 00:17:26.213 --> 00:17:32.982 ALWAYS DRIVING A VEHICLE THEY'RE ALWAYS ON COMPANY TIME. RICHARD B. 207 00:17:32.982 --> 00:17:37.407 RUBENSTEIN: THE STATUTE SAYS THAT ANY EMPLOYEE YOUTH LOSES AN EMPLOYEE 208 00:17:37.407 --> 00:17:42.142 AUTHORIZED VEHICLE SHALL COMMENCE AND TERMINATE THE TIME SPENT. JUSTICE PATTERSON: 209 00:17:42.142 --> 00:17:44.967 LOW DOWN. RICHARD B. RUBENSTEIN: OR THE OPERATION OF A VEHICLE ON BUSINESS 210 00:17:44.967 --> 00:17:49.207 AUTHORIZED BY THE EMPLOYER. SO WE ASSUME HE HAS AN EMPLOYER AUTHORIZED VEHICLE 211 00:17:49.207 --> 00:17:53.633 AND WE ASSUME FOR PURPOSES OF COMPENSABILITY THAT HE'S DOING THE WORK THAT HE'S 212 00:17:53.633 --> 00:17:58.574 AUTHORIZED WHILE USING THE VEHICLE AND ANY OTHER TIME. JUSTICE PATTERSON: 213 00:17:58.574 --> 00:18:02.352 HE'S COMMUTING IN A COMPANY VEHICLE HE IS ON BUSINESS AUTHORIZED BY P EMPLOYER. 214 00:18:02.352 --> 00:18:05.615 RICHARD B. RUBENSTEIN: I WOULD SAY HE IS BECAUSE THE EMPLOYER IS REQUIRING 215 00:18:05.615 --> 00:18:10.129 HIM TO BE IN A PARTICULAR PLACE AT A PARTICULAR TIME SO THAT HE CAN THEN DO 216 00:18:10.129 --> 00:18:15.484 OFF PREMISES WORK. JUSTICE PATTERSON: ARE YOU ARGUING THAT THERE IS AN 217 00:18:15.484 --> 00:18:20.975 EMPLOYER AUTHORIZED VEHICLE EXCEPTION TO GENERAL EXCEPTION TO THE COMMUTING RULE. 218 00:18:20.975 --> 00:18:24.695 RICHARD B. RUBENSTEIN: YES, IT'S NOT ACTUALLY AN EXCEPTION, IT'S A PROVISION. 219 00:18:24.695 --> 00:18:27.896 IT'S AN AFFIRMATIVE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE EMPLOYER TO PAY COMPENSATION TO 220 00:18:27.896 --> 00:18:32.931 AN EMPLOYEE WHO WAS OPERATING AUTHORIZED VEHICLE IN THE COURSE OF AUTHORIZED 221 00:18:32.931 --> 00:18:37.429 DUTIES OR BUSINESS AUTHORS. THE EMPLOYER HAS THE OPTION TO TELL SOMEONE THEY 222 00:18:37.429 --> 00:18:41.640 CAN'T DRIVE TO WORK IN THE TRUCK. JUSTICE PATTERSON: AND THIS IS EVEN IF THERE 223 00:18:41.640 --> 00:18:49.093 -- WHAT OTHERWISE CONSTITUTE A COPPING AND GOING SITUATION, IN OTHER WORDS, EVERYTHING 224 00:18:49.093 --> 00:18:54.061 IS SIMILAR BETWEEN TWO SCENARIOS AND IN WHICH COMMUTE HE WE KNOW FROM THE 225 00:18:54.061 --> 00:18:58.096 STATUTE COMMUTING IN GENERAL IS NOT WITHIN THE STATUTE. YOU'RE SAYING NO MATTER 226 00:18:58.096 --> 00:19:03.817 WHAT'S GOING ON, NO MATTER HOW MANY TIMES THEY GO TO THE PARTICULAR PLACE THEY GO 227 00:19:03.817 --> 00:19:07.720 EVER DAY TO THE OFFICE, EVERY DAY TO THE PLANT, THEY LEAVE FROM THE PLANT, IF THEY'VE 228 00:19:07.720 --> 00:19:11.881 GOT AN EMPLOYER AUTHORIZED VEHICLE EVERYTHING IS WITHIN THE STATUTE, 229 00:19:11.881 --> 00:19:14.783 EVERYTHING IS COMPENSABLE. RICHARD B. RUBENSTEIN: I'M SAYING THAT IF 230 00:19:14.783 --> 00:19:19.935 YOU'RE PROVIDED WITH A EMPLOYER AUTHORIZED VEHICLE AND YOU ARE DOING SOMETHING THAT THE 231 00:19:19.935 --> 00:19:25.389 EMPLOYER AUTHORIZING YOU TO DO IT THEN THE INQUIRE TO FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO 232 00:19:25.389 --> 00:19:30.069 DO IS IF THERE IS INDEED AUTHORIZATION TO DO ET CETERA THEN IT'S NOT A DEVIATION. 233 00:19:30.069 --> 00:19:35.316 IT'S FALSE QUARREL WITHIN THE LAST SECTION OF QUESTION THRIX. THE COURT: 234 00:19:35.316 --> 00:19:39.709 DOES THAT ENCOMPASS A SITUATION WHERE THE EMPLOYER SAYS WE WORK IN OFFICE ALL 235 00:19:39.709 --> 00:19:45.944 TIMES, YOU CAN HAVE THE VEHICLE, DRIVE IT IN THE MORNING, SPEND YOUR DAY THERE. 236 00:19:45.944 --> 00:19:48.071 RICHARD B. RUBENSTEIN: I'M SORRY. THE COURT: I'M OFF PREMISE WORK, THE WORK 237 00:19:48.071 --> 00:19:53.884 IS JUST IN THE OFFICE. YOU'VE USED AN AUTHORIZED VEHICLE AS IT QUALIFIES BUSINESS 238 00:19:53.884 --> 00:19:59.925 AUTHORIZED BY THE EMPLOYER AS WELL. RICHARD B. RUBENSTEIN: IF YOU'RE A ON 239 00:19:59.925 --> 00:20:03.460 PREMISE EMPLOYEE THE LAST PROVISION OF THE STATUTE SHOULD NOT NECESSARILY COVER 240 00:20:03.460 --> 00:20:10.162 YOU BECAUSE IT IS DESIGNED FOR OFF PREMISES EMPLOYEES. THE COURT: 241 00:20:10.162 --> 00:20:14.489 YOU HEARD US AT THE OUTSET OF THE ARGUMENT PARSE THE STATUTE. WHERE DO YOU COME 242 00:20:14.489 --> 00:20:18.649 OUT ON THAT. THE APPROPRIATE READING OF THE ELEMENTS IN THE STATUTE. RICHARD B. 243 00:20:18.649 --> 00:20:22.347 RUBENSTEIN: THE FINAL ELEMENT IN THE STATUTE IS THE ONLY ONE THAT I CONCERN MYSELF 244 00:20:22.347 --> 00:20:26.817 WITH BECAUSE THAT'S THE ONE THAT APPLIED TO CASE. THE COURT: HELP US WITH 245 00:20:26.817 --> 00:20:31.601 THE OTHERS AS WELL IN LIGHT OF YOUR SPEAKER TEASE. RICHARD B. RUBENSTEIN: 246 00:20:31.601 --> 00:20:38.169 MY EXPERT TEASE HAS NEVER BEEN LOWER, YOUR HONOR. THE FIRST THING IS I THINK 247 00:20:38.169 --> 00:20:44.665 TO LOOK AT WHAT CONSCIOUS TUTSES A COMMUTE WHEN WE TRY AND PARSE THROUGH WHAT 248 00:20:44.665 --> 00:20:49.317 COMMUTATION IS. A COMMUTE HAS FOUR CORNERS WHEN YOU GO FROM YOUR HOME TO A SPECIFIC 249 00:20:49.317 --> 00:20:52.265 PLACE WHERE YOU DO BUSINESS AND THEN YOU GO FROM THAT PLACE BACK HOME. THAT IT IS 250 00:20:52.265 --> 00:20:58.724 THE COMMON UNDERSTANDING OF THE WORD COMMUTE. PEOPLE DO NOT COMMUTE IN EIGHT 251 00:20:58.724 --> 00:21:01.831 CONCERNED FIGURE. THEY COMMUTE TO WORK AND THEY COMMUTE FROM WORK, THAT'S THE 252 00:21:01.831 --> 00:21:07.482 WAY THE LEGISLATURE UNDERSTOOD A COMMUTATION IN 1979 BECAUSE THAT'S HOW PEOPLE 253 00:21:07.482 --> 00:21:14.379 BEHAVED IN 1979 WORKING IN OFFICES AND IN FACTORS. SO I THINK FIRST WE MUST 254 00:21:14.379 --> 00:21:19.451 CONCLUDE FROM OUR READING OF SECTION THRIX ANY VERSION OR COMMUTATION THAT DOES NOT 255 00:21:19.451 --> 00:21:24.886 MAKE IT THROUGH FOUR CORNERS AS A TEST. THE METHAMPHETAMINE WHO HAS MORE THAN 256 00:21:24.886 --> 00:21:29.419 FOUR CORNERS THE COMMUTE IS NOT SOMEBODY WHO IS TETHERED TO THEIR OFFICE THEREFORE, 257 00:21:29.419 --> 00:21:33.027 WE HAVE TO LOOK TO THE ARE REST OF THE STATUTE. WHEN AN EMPLOYEE IS REQUIRED 258 00:21:33.027 --> 00:21:38.089 BY THE EMPLOYER TO BE AWAY PROSECUTE THE EMPLOYERS PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT PROBABLY 259 00:21:38.089 --> 00:21:43.352 DEALS WITH SPECIAL MISSION OF CASES IT DOES NOT SPEAK BROADLY. IT SPEAKS VERY 260 00:21:43.352 --> 00:21:46.989 NARROWLY TO WHEN THE EMPLOYER IS REQUIRED TO BE AWAY PROSECUTE THE COURSE OF 261 00:21:46.989 --> 00:21:52.302 EMPLOYMENT. IF WE SKIP DOWN TO THE END WHERE THERE IS THE BROADER DEFINITION. 262 00:21:52.302 --> 00:21:55.470 THAT IT IS THE ONE THAT WAS INTENDED AS I THINK THE COURT PREVIOUSLY OBSERVED 263 00:21:55.470 --> 00:22:01.517 TO COVER EMPLOYEES WHO WERE PURELY -- WHO ARE CHIEFLY OFF PREMISES EMPLOYEES, 264 00:22:01.517 --> 00:22:06.756 IT'S TO GIVE THEM PROTECTION THAT THE STATUTE ALWAYS GAVE THEM AND WITH GOOD 265 00:22:06.756 --> 00:22:10.802 REASON BECAUSE IT DOESN'T INVOLVE A DEVIATION. IT DOESN'T INVOLVE PERSONAL 266 00:22:10.802 --> 00:22:15.808 CONFIDENT. IT DOESN'T INVOLVE ANYTHING EXCEPT DOING A TASK DIRECTLY IMPORTANT THE 267 00:22:15.808 --> 00:22:22.351 EMPLOYER. JUSTICE NORIEGA: COUNSEL YOU DISAGREE WITH MS. PASQUA'S DRIPPINGS OF 268 00:22:22.351 --> 00:22:27.414 HOW WE SHOULD VIEW THE STATUTE BEING TETHERED TO THE PHYSICAL PREMISES. 269 00:22:27.414 --> 00:22:30.697 RICHARD B. RUBENSTEIN: IT'S NEVER BEEN MORE CLEAR TO EVERYONE WHO IS ALIVE TODAY 270 00:22:30.697 --> 00:22:36.953 THAT THE DEFINITION OF A PREMISES IS EVERY CHANGING. I SHUDDER TO THINK OF 271 00:22:36.953 --> 00:22:42.703 WHAT A CHANGE IN THE STATUTE AFTER THE COVID EPIDEMIC COULD BRING IN TRYING 272 00:22:42.703 --> 00:22:47.768 TO BRING PEOPLE WHO WORK OUT OF HOME OFFICES UNDER THE REVIEW RIBBING OF WORKER'S 273 00:22:47.768 --> 00:22:51.715 COMPENSATION. FORTUNATELY WE'RE NOT THERE YET. WHERE WE ARE IS IN A PLACE 274 00:22:51.715 --> 00:22:57.653 WHERE IT'S CRYSTAL CLEAR THAT AN OFF PREMISE EMPLOYEE WAS OPERATING AN EMPLOYER 275 00:22:57.653 --> 00:23:02.603 VEHICLE FURTHER THERE BUSINESS IS COVERED. I DISAGREE WITH MS. PASQUA VEHEMENTLY 276 00:23:02.603 --> 00:23:08.145 AS TO WHAT IS DEFINED THAT PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT WHICH IS THE CORE OF THE 277 00:23:08.145 --> 00:23:13.074 COURT'S INQUIRY. A PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT IS WHERE SOMEONE DOES THEIR JOB. NO ONE COULD 278 00:23:13.074 --> 00:23:21.073 SERIOUSLY SAY THAT HENRY KEIM DID HIS JOB IN FORKED RIVER. HE DID HIS JOB 279 00:23:21.073 --> 00:23:25.653 ON IN A VAN OFF I PAT INSTRUCTIONS AT VARIOUS PLACES WHERE HE ADMINISTERED CHEMICALS. 280 00:23:25.653 --> 00:23:29.872 THAT WAS HIS JOB. INCIDENTAL TO HIS JOB WAS THAT ONCE IN AWHILE HE WOULD 281 00:23:29.872 --> 00:23:36.803 HAVE TO SPEND FIVE MINUTES PICKING UP A CYLINDER OF CHEMICALS IN FORKED RIVER AT 282 00:23:36.803 --> 00:23:39.254 HIS OWN PERIOD DRIVING EMPLOYER VEHICLE THAT WAS NOT OTHERWISE COVERED BY THE 283 00:23:39.254 --> 00:23:45.031 WAY. LET'S NOT FORGET THIS MAN WAS DRIVING A CUSTOMER AT WORK THAT HAD NO 284 00:23:45.031 --> 00:23:49.965 PERSONAL PROTECTION BENEFITS IF HE DOESN'T HAVE WORKERS HE'S NOT COVERED BY PIP HE 285 00:23:49.965 --> 00:23:55.969 BECOMES A PUBLIC CHARGE HIS MEDICAL BILLS ARE NOT POLE BECAUSE A DON'T HOLE 286 00:23:55.969 --> 00:24:01.900 THAT MY ADVERA. JUSTICE FASCIALE: IN ANSWER TO THE CHIEF'S QUESTION SENTENCE 287 00:24:01.900 --> 00:24:06.755 2021 DOESN'T RESOLVE THE ISSUE ON APPEAL, SENTENCE TWO DOES NOT RESOLVE THE 288 00:24:06.755 --> 00:24:12.587 ISSUE ON APPEAL, SENTENCE THREE DOES NOT RESOLVE THE ISSUE ON APPEAL BUT SECTION 289 00:24:12.587 --> 00:24:20.706 4B RESOLVES THE ISSUE ON APPEAL WHICH IS OR QUOTE THE AUTHORIZED OPERATION OF A 290 00:24:20.706 --> 00:24:24.586 VEHICLE ON BUSINESS AUTHORIZED BY THE EMPLOYER. RICHARD B. RUBENSTEIN: 291 00:24:24.586 --> 00:24:27.867 MORE THAN AUTHORIZED YOUR HONOR, IT WAS ORDERED IT WAS COMPELLED. 292 00:24:27.867 --> 00:24:31.306 JUSTICE FASCIALE: BUT THAT'S THE SECTION OF THE STATUTE YOU RELY ONTO SAY IT'S 293 00:24:31.306 --> 00:24:33.563 COMPENSABLE. RICHARD B. RUBENSTEIN: I DO. JUSTICE FASCIALE: AND 294 00:24:33.563 --> 00:24:42.770 ESSENTIALLY IT'S THE -- IT IS THE AUTHORIZED OPERATION OF THE BUSINESS VEHICLE 295 00:24:42.770 --> 00:24:46.271 EXCEPTION TO THE PREMISES RULE OR DEFINITION. RICHARD B. RUBENSTEIN: 296 00:24:46.271 --> 00:24:48.305 YES, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: OKAY. THE COURT: ANYTHING YOU WOULD LIKE TO 297 00:24:48.305 --> 00:24:52.789 ADD, COUNSEL. RICHARD B. RUBENSTEIN: THANK YOU FOR HEARING 298 00:24:52.789 --> 00:25:03.067 AMICUS TODAY. THE COURT: MS. PASQUA, YOU GET THE FINAL WORD. ANNE 299 00:25:03.067 --> 00:25:08.656 HAMMILL PASQUA: YOUR HONOR, THE SECTION 36 IS NOT A COMMUTER RULE IT IS A PREMISES 300 00:25:08.656 --> 00:25:13.872 RULE. JUSTICE PATTERSON: PLEASE SPEAK A LITTLE SLOWER. ANNE HAMMILL 301 00:25:13.872 --> 00:25:16.739 PASQUA: SECTION THRIX NOT A COMPUTER RULE IT'S A PREMISES RULE. THE LEGS TORE 302 00:25:16.739 --> 00:25:21.438 IS TALKING ABOUT THE EMPLOYER HE'S A PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT EXCLUDING AREAS NOT UNDER 303 00:25:21.438 --> 00:25:26.509 CONTROL OF THE EMPLOYER. I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT COMMUTER IF THEY WERE TALKING 304 00:25:26.509 --> 00:25:30.817 ABOUT COMMUTE IT WOULD SAY COMMUTE. THIS EXCLUDES OTHER ACTION TESTS FOR EXAMPLE 305 00:25:30.817 --> 00:25:40.201 LUNCHTIME INJURIES. THE BRIGHT LINE RULE THAT MS. GILMORE MORE MENTIONED 306 00:25:40.201 --> 00:25:46.014 REGARDING CONTROL THAT IS NOT THE BRIGHT LINE ROOM. THE BRIGHT LINE RULE IS WAS 307 00:25:46.014 --> 00:25:49.986 THE PETITIONER PRIOR TO BE AWAY PROSECUTE THE EMPLOY EARS PREMISES IF THEY'RE 308 00:25:49.986 --> 00:25:55.355 NO LONGER IN THE CONTROL OF THE EMPLOYER HE'S PREMISES A BEING AWAY FROM THE 309 00:25:55.355 --> 00:25:59.886 PLEA AGREEMENT YOU THEN GO TO THE QUESTION OF WERE THEY THERE AT THE DIRECTION 310 00:25:59.886 --> 00:26:05.590 OF THE EMPLOYER. WAS IT PAID TRAVEL TIME. WERE THEY IN AN AUTHORIZED VEHICLE. 311 00:26:05.590 --> 00:26:11.612 IT MAKES NO SENSE OTHERWISE UNDER AMICUS ARGUMENT MR. KEIM WOULD BE COVERED 312 00:26:11.612 --> 00:26:19.842 NO MATTER WHAT UNLESS HE DID A PERSONAL ERRAND THAT. FLIES IN THE FACE OF 313 00:26:19.842 --> 00:26:23.505 HIS ON HIM. SHE WAS NOT COVERED DRIVING HOME BETWEEN WORK AND A NIGHTTIME TRAINING 314 00:26:23.505 --> 00:26:28.578 SESSION WHEN HER SUPERVISOR SUGGESTED GO HOME EXTEND SOME TIME IN YOUR KIDS. THERE 315 00:26:28.578 --> 00:26:35.421 WAS A SUGGESTION TO GO HOME. HIS ON HIM WAS NOT COVERED. THE CONTROL OUTSIDE 316 00:26:35.421 --> 00:26:39.677 OF A PHYSICAL CONTROL ONLY COMES INTO PLAY WHEN THAT EMPLOYEE IS REQUIRED TO BE 317 00:26:39.677 --> 00:26:45.849 AWAY FROM THE PLEA AGREEMENT. WHAT WAS THE INTENTION OF THE STATUTE. STATUTE 318 00:26:45.849 --> 00:26:50.429 SECTIONS TWO, THREE AND FOUR, THEY COULD APPLY TO ON PREMISES OR OFF PREMISES 319 00:26:50.429 --> 00:26:54.997 EMPLOYEE, THERE'S NO DELINEATION, IT'S POSSIBLE THAT AN ON PREMISES IS USING AN AUTHORIZED 320 00:26:54.997 --> 00:27:01.290 VEHICLE FOR SOME BUSINESS PURPOSE. THERE IS NO DELINEATION THERE. 321 00:27:01.290 --> 00:27:07.504 THREE AND FOUR, THIS FURTHER HIGHLIGHTS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ACCIDENTS OFF PREMISES 322 00:27:07.504 --> 00:27:12.396 THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT JOB SITES, USE OF THE VEHICLE BETWEEN JOB SITES, TRAVEL 323 00:27:12.396 --> 00:27:25.200 TIME BETWEEN JOB SITES T HIS WHOM LAW HELPED IS YOU KNOW PUBLISHED CASE BUT 324 00:27:25.200 --> 00:27:29.449 THAT THAT IS A SITUATION OF THE LAWYER COMING FROM COURT AND GOING TO GET A 325 00:27:29.449 --> 00:27:34.869 FILE AND THEN DRIVING HOME FROM THE OFFICE THAT WAS NOT COMPENSABLE. HE WAS DRIVING 326 00:27:34.869 --> 00:27:38.693 AN AUTHORIZED VEHICLE PROSECUTE THE LAW OFFICE BECAUSE HE HAD TO GO THERE TO 327 00:27:38.693 --> 00:27:44.719 PICK UP A FILE FOR THE NEXT DAY AND THEN HE DROVE HOME. THAT WAS NOT COVERED. 328 00:27:44.719 --> 00:27:56.680 IN THIS CASE MR. KEIM IS LIKE ANY OTHER EMPLOYEE STARTING OUT HIS DAY GOING 329 00:27:56.680 --> 00:28:02.701 TO WORK. HE HAD NOT YET REACHED THE PREMISE OF THE EMPLOYMENT SO HE WAS NOT 330 00:28:02.701 --> 00:28:07.309 COVERED. HE WAS NOT BEING -- HE WAS NOT REQUIRED TO BE AWAY PROSECUTE THE 331 00:28:07.309 --> 00:28:12.177 PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT. HE WAS NOT TRAVELING TO A JOHN SIGHT AND HE WAS NOT PAID TRAVEL 332 00:28:12.177 --> 00:28:17.388 TIME. TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE UNDERLYING LEGISLATIVE INCIDENT YOU CANNOT 333 00:28:17.388 --> 00:28:22.422 SAY JUST BECAUSE YOU'RE USING AUTHORIZED VEHICLE YOU'RE NOW COVERED FOR THEY GO. 334 00:28:22.422 --> 00:28:28.642 THAT'S NOT WHAT THE STATUTE MEANT. THE STATUTE IS CRYSTAL CLEAR IN RULING 335 00:28:28.642 --> 00:28:33.322 OUT ACCIDENTS DRIVING TO THE EMPLOY EARS PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT UNTIL THE EMPLOYER 336 00:28:33.322 --> 00:28:37.262 REACHES THE PREMISE -T. THE STATUTE CODIFIES FOUR EXCEPTIONS ONLY AND THESE 337 00:28:37.262 --> 00:28:41.364 ALL REQUIRE THE EMPLOYEE TO BE AWAY PROSECUTE THE PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT. TO 338 00:28:41.364 --> 00:28:44.477 HOLD OTHERWISE WOULD BRING IN MILLIONS OF WORKERS INTO THE SCOPE OF COMPENSATION 339 00:28:44.477 --> 00:28:51.777 THAT ARE EXCLUDED BY THE PREMISES RULE. ALL ARGUMENTS OF COMPENSABILITY DO NOT 340 00:28:51.777 --> 00:28:55.777 APPLY TO KEIM AS HE WAS NOT REQUIRED TO AWAY PROSECUTE THE PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT. 341 00:28:55.777 --> 00:29:02.229 THE APPLICATION OF THIS LOGIC FOLLOWS THE PLAIN LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE AS WELL AS 342 00:29:02.229 --> 00:29:06.924 THE LEGISLATIVE INTENT. THE FUNDAMENTAL RULE IS THAT YOU DON'T ARRIVE UNTIL 343 00:29:06.924 --> 00:29:21.208 THE PREMISE IT'S A PREMISE RULE IT'S NOT A COMMUTER RULE. THAT IS ABOUT ALL 344 00:29:21.208 --> 00:29:24.931 THAT I HAVE IN RESPONSE TO THAT. IF THERE'S ANY OTHER QUESTIONS. THE COURT: 345 00:29:24.931 --> 00:29:27.533 THAT YOU, COUNSEL. ANNE HAMMILL PASQUA: THAT YOU VERY MUCH YOUR HONOR. 346 00:29:27.533 --> 00:29:31.040 THE COURT: THAT YOU FOR ACCOMMODATING OUR SCHEDULE. WE'LL TAKE THE MATTER UNDER 347 00:29:31.040 --> 00:29:34.040 ADVISEMENT.