A Virginia appeals court has drawn a firm line on workers’ comp, denying benefits for a slip-and-fall injury that happened off employer-controlled property.
On Sept. 9, the Virginia Court of Appeals affirmed the Workers’ Compensation Commission’s denial of benefits to Audra L. Poole, a phlebotomist at Quest Diagnostics, Inc., after she was injured on her way to work. The case is a textbook example of how state law limits employer liability for injuries that occur outside of areas owned or controlled by the employer – a key concern for insurance professionals managing workers’ comp risk.
The incident took place in February 2022, when Poole was heading to her job at Carilion’s Roanoke Memorial Hospital. She parked in a public garage near the hospital, using a handicap spot as permitted. After leaving her car, Poole walked through a public crosswalk and slipped on ice, fracturing her wrist – a serious injury that required three surgeries.
Poole filed for workers’ compensation, seeking a lifetime medical award and temporary total disability. The claim was denied at both the deputy commissioner and full commission levels. The commission found that Poole’s injury did not arise out of and in the course of her employment, emphasizing that neither the “coming and going” rule exceptions nor the “extended premises” doctrine applied.
Under Virginia law, injuries sustained during a commute are generally not compensable unless the employer provides transportation, pays for travel time, requires a specific route, or assigns work-related tasks during the commute. In this case, the evidence showed Quest Diagnostics did not own, control, or maintain the crosswalk or parking garage, and employees were not required to use any particular parking area or route.
Poole argued that the crosswalk and parking garage should be considered part of her employer’s “extended premises,” but the court found no evidence to support this. Testimony from her supervisor confirmed that employees were given parking options but not required to use any specific location. The court drew a clear distinction between employer-controlled areas, such as private parking lots, and public streets, concluding that the latter do not qualify for workers’ compensation coverage.
The court ultimately affirmed the commission’s decision, holding that Poole’s injury did not arise out of her employment and that the extended premises doctrine did not apply.
For insurance professionals, this case is a timely reminder of the importance of employer control and clear workplace policies regarding parking and access routes. It underscores that, in Virginia, injuries on public property during a commute – where the employer has no ownership or control – are unlikely to be covered by workers’ comp. The decision highlights the need for clear communication between insurers, employers, and employees about the boundaries of coverage.
This outcome may not surprise seasoned workers’ comp professionals, but it’s a valuable case study for claims handlers and risk managers. The decision reinforces that the specifics of where and how an injury occurs are critical in determining compensability – and that employer liability has clear limits when it comes to public spaces outside the employer’s direct control.
