{ "id": 6649140, "name": "William J. WOLFE v. CITY OF EL DORADO, et al.", "name_abbreviation": "Wolfe v. City of El Dorado", "decision_date": "1990-12-05", "docket_number": "CA 90-149", "first_page": "25", "last_page": "28", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "33 Ark. App. 25" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "799 S.W.2d 812" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark. Ct. App.", "id": 13370, "name": "Arkansas Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "320 N.W.2d 84", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.W.2d", "case_ids": [ 10676933 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "85" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nw2d/320/0084-01" ] }, { "cite": "451 N.E.2d 446", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1983, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "16 Mass. App. 337", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mass. App. Ct.", "case_ids": [ 5741554 ], "year": 1983, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/mass-app-ct/16/0337-01" ] }, { "cite": "12 Ark. App. 287", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark. App.", "case_ids": [ 6142137 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1984, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark-app/12/0287-01" ] }, { "cite": "22 Ark. App. 21", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark. App.", "case_ids": [ 6656975 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1987, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark-app/22/0021-01" ] }, { "cite": "191 Kan. 130", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Kan.", "case_ids": [ 504963 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1963, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/kan/191/0130-01" ] }, { "cite": "122 Cal. Rptr. 139", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Cal. Rptr.", "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "48 Cal. App. 3d 872", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Cal. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 6039780 ], "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/cal-app-3d/48/0872-01" ] }, { "cite": "494 N.E.2d 1", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1986, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "397 Mass. 743", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mass.", "case_ids": [ 874768 ], "year": 1986, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/mass/397/0743-01" ] }, { "cite": "22 Ark. App. 132", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark. App.", "case_ids": [ 6659922 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "134" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark-app/22/0132-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 394, "char_count": 5817, "ocr_confidence": 0.855, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.6024387759243077e-07, "percentile": 0.6841151742823617 }, "sha256": "3fd88dc5f0a0d6f2203521b23d9db720818d2896f05092b8733ba242b54cf5fd", "simhash": "1:37898924f84773d6", "word_count": 969 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:06:58.749715+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Corbin, C.J., and Rogers, J., agree." ], "parties": [ "William J. WOLFE v. CITY OF EL DORADO, et al." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JohnE. Jennings, Judge.\nOn September 12,1987, William J. Wolfe sustained an admittedly compensable injury to his neck resulting from an automobile accident. Wolfe was then an officer with the El Dorado Police Department. His neck injury was treated with physical therapy, muscle relaxants, and pain pills.\nOn November 23,1988, Mr. Wolfe\u2019s wife, Wanda, drove to work in his pickup truck. When Wolfe discovered his medicine had been left in the truck he drove his wife\u2019s car to her work place to retrieve it. On the way home his vehicle was struck from the rear. The accident resulted in an injury to Wolfe\u2019s lower back, which was also treated with physical therapy.\nThe issue is whether the claimant\u2019s second injury is compen-sable. The administrative law judge held that it was, relying on Preway, Inc. v. Davis, 22 Ark. App. 132, 736 S.W.2d 21 (1987). The Commission held that it was not, distinguishing Preway. We affirm the Commission\u2019s decision.\nIn Preway the claimant sustained a compensable back injury. She sought permission from the insurance carrier to see a doctor in her hometown of Paragould but was advised by the carrier to return to her treating physician in Memphis. On the way to the doctor\u2019s office the claimant had an automobile accident and suffered a broken ankle. We affirmed the Commission\u2019s conclusion that the second injury was compensable. We quoted, with approval, the general rule from Larson that \u201cwhen an employee suffers additional injuries because of an accident in the course of a journey to a doctor\u2019s office occasioned by compensable injury, the additional injuries are generally held compensa-ble. . . .\u201d Preway, Inc., 22 Ark. App. at 134, citing 1 A. Larson, The Law of Workmen\u2019s Compensation \u00a7 13.13 (1985). See also McElroy\u2019s Case, 397 Mass. 743, 494 N.E.2d 1 (1986); Laines v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals Bd., 48 Cal. App. 3d 872, 122 Cal. Rptr. 139 (1975); Taylor v. Centex Constr. Co., 191 Kan. 130, 379 P.2d 217 (1963).\nWe also discussed Larson\u2019s concept of \u201cquasi-course of employment\u201d:\nBy this expression is meant activities undertaken by the employee following upon his injury which, although they take place outside the time and space limits of the employment, and would not be considered employment activities for usual purposes, are nevertheless related to the employment in the sense that they are necessary or reasonable activities that would not have been undertaken but for the compensable injury.\nThe word \u201creasonable\u201d as used here by Larson \u201crelates not to the method used, but to the category of activity itself.\u201d 1 A. Larson, The Law of Workmen's Compensation \u00a7 13.11(d) (1990).\nWhile we were correct in holding in Preway that the \u201cgoing and coming rule\u201d did not govern the decision there, some of the general principles associated with the rule certainly are not irrelevant. The claimant bears the burden of proving that his injury was the result of an accident that arose in the course of his employment, and that it grew out of, or resulted from the employment. Moore v. Darling Store Fixtures, 22 Ark. App. 21, 732 S.W.2d 496 (1987). In order for an injury to arise out of the employment it must be a natural and probable consequence or incident of the employment and a natural result of one of its risks. Arkansas Dep\u2019t of Health v. Huntley, 12 Ark. App. 287, 675 S.W.2d 845 (1984).\nThe facts in Maguire\u2019s Case, 16 Mass. App. 337, 451 N.E.2d 446 (1983) are virtually indistinguishable from the case at bar. There the claimant suffered an injury to a tooth while in the scope and course of her employment. She was treated by a dentist who prescribed penicillin and codeine. A few days later the dentist pulled the tooth. As the claimant headed back to work she realized she had left her codeine at home. On the way back to retrieve it she was injured in an automobile accident. The Massachusetts Appeals Court, while recognizing that recovery is generally allowed for injuries sustained while in route for medical treatment of work-related injuries, held that an injury such as the claimant\u2019s was beyond the risk that an employer is required to bear.\nA somewhat similar decision was made in Schander v. Northern States Power Co., 320 N.W.2d 84 (Minn. 1982). There the claimant was injured in an automobile accident while returning home after attending a retraining course for which he had been certified following a work-related injury. While the court recognized that under Minnesota law an employee has \u201cas much right to receive retraining as he does to receive medical treatment,\u201d the court held that compensation should not have been awarded for the second injury:\nWe are not convinced, however, that there is a sufficiently direct relationship between employment and injuries sustained by an employee while returning from his retraining course to his home that justify the conclusion that during that time he is in the course of employment.\nSchander, 320 N.W.2d at 85.\nWe agree with the holdings in Maguire\u2019s Case and Schander. Certainly the claimant\u2019s prior compensable injury was a cause of his second automobile accident-in the sense that, but for the original compensable injury, Wolfe would have had no occasion to be taking the medicine at all. His conduct in driving to his wife\u2019s place of work to get his medicine was not unreasonable in the abstract. However, the risk of injury during the course of this \u201ccategory of activity,\u201d i.e. a trip by the claimant to retrieve forgotten medication, is one which, on balance, ought not to be borne by the employer.\nAffirmed.\nCorbin, C.J., and Rogers, J., agree.", "type": "majority", "author": "JohnE. Jennings, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Shackleford, Shackleford & Phillips, P.A., for appellant.", "J. Chris Bradley, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "William J. WOLFE v. CITY OF EL DORADO, et al.\nCA 90-149\n799 S.W.2d 812\nCourt of Appeals of Arkansas Division I\nOpinion delivered December 5, 1990\nShackleford, Shackleford & Phillips, P.A., for appellant.\nJ. Chris Bradley, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0025-01", "first_page_order": 47, "last_page_order": 50 }