Beaudry v. SAIF

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Employment Law
  • Date Filed: 10-04-2017
  • Case #: A159575
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Tookey, P.J. for the Court; DeHoog, J.; & Sercombe, S.J.
  • Full Text Opinion

When a traveling employee is on a “distinct departure on a personal errand” the employee is no longer considered to be within the course and scope of employment. SAIF v. Scardi, 218 Or App 403, 180 P3d 56, rev den, 345 Or 175 (2008)

Claimant sought review of Workers’ Compensation Board order. Claimant assigned error to the upholding of a denial for worker’s compensation benefits. On appeal, Claimant argued her spouse was a travelling employee in the court of his employment when he was killed in a motor vehicle accident. In response, Employer argued there is no entitlement to worker’s compensation benefits because the deceased was on a distinct departure on a personal errand. When a traveling employee is on a “distinct departure on a personal errand” the employee is no longer considered to be within the course and scope of employment. SAIF v. Scardi, 218 Or App 403, 180 P3d 56, rev den, 345 Or 175 (2008). The Court of Appeals upheld the denial of benefits because the accident occurred during a personal errand unrelated to the scope of decedent’s employment. Affirmed. 

Advanced Search