The Appellate Court, affirming a trial court dismissal, ruled, that even though the judge was afforded mileage reimbursement. The Court stated that there was no proof that her commute to work was part of her actual work day. It also reasoned that there was no "special hazards" incurred by the travel, nor was it considered a "special mission." Therefore, the denial of benefits was affirmed under the "coming and going" rule.
Audrey Kernan v. State of NJ, Docket A-4261-11T4 (Decided June 19, 2013)
Read more about "The Coming and Going Rule" and workers' compensation:
Mar 23, 2013
The Going and Coming Rule: Parking Lot Injury Held Not Compensable. English: Symbol of interchange parking. Italia... A NJ appellate court ruled that an employee who was severely injured in a parking lot as a result of a ...
Apr 23, 2013
“'We're going to be coming up with a package of proposals that's going to work both sides of that,' Christie told a caller on his monthly NJ 101.5 FM radio show tonight. 'The employers who may not be stepping up and meeting ...
Feb 01, 2013
The Affordable Care Act (ACA) is going to definitely change the landscape of medical delivery over the coming future. Medical care afforded by workers' compensation delivery systems will ultimately be merged into a ...
Sep 25, 2011
Prior to Brancheau's death, California OSHA had issued a citation against SeaWorld, coming to the conclusion that if procedures at the parks didn't change, eventually somebody was going to die. SeaWorld used political ...
