WPC . ww5Yt/H|]飊@K<^S3@k'(3Mg ZOx:oi3W-AQ$]T>7g)R]KNJM5;9]@|?c_2̾&/%.4Bz-7vJ-FZyEwe oܴ[q*ɳtVP).拌i𴾣Q& @:+%(*1eMF&uavATH㩧я7Y5#r_tt.5&#_8?u]E`9m1{#Kbܵj)6[,Q/Y`uA3!FFW"נܦU4aڐ9wmxhr>[Q[+Doq%]^lqj&+Bb\>H6mךP5s@Hg/+!vx]9%I ?/b#\ % ^ # 0/ UN w 4 z  i x mz 0  K  0N 0 0~Ei 0k 0S 08 0 0 0 0 0 0r 0K 0! 0 0 0 0[ 0< 0 0 0! 0" 0t# 0C$ 0%b%UN% 0D.&U@r&k&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& 0)))) B** 0%* D3* D-* 0K)+)+ ASt++ 0, 0D1- Au-HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5e,,,,0+s (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman RegularB+ren C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3>xU2J+M 0_level1  X 2( ` hp x 223  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  ӁLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 52G+M 0_level2   /%` ` hp x /23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2D+M 0_level3   ," hp x ,23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2A+M 0_level4  ` ) hp x )23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2>+M 0_level5   &hhp x &23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2;+M 0_level6   #p x #23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  28+M 0_level7  h  p x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  25+M 0_level8   pp x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  22+M 0_level9    x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2JM 0_levsl1  X 2( ` hp x 223  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2GM 0_levsl2   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2DM 0_levsl3   ," hp x ,23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2AM 0_levsl4  ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2>M 0_levsl5   &hhp x &23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2;M 0_levsl6   #p x #23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  28M 0_levsl7  h  p x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  25M 0_levsl8   pp x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  22M 0_levsl9    x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2JM 0_levnl1  X 2( ` hp x 223   5+ ` hp x 5  2GM 0_levnl2   /%` ` hp x /23   5+ ` hp x 5  2DM 0_levnl3   ," hp x ,23   5+ ` hp x 5  2AM 0_levnl4  ` ) hp x )23   5+ ` hp x 5  2>M 0_levnl5   &hhp x &23   5+ ` hp x 5  2;M 0_levnl6   #p x #23   5+ ` hp x 5  28M 0_levnl7  h  p x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  25M 0_levnl8   pp x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  22M 0_levnl9    x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  - -(I Z6Times New Roman Regular(#$  0  (I Z(Times New Roman  a R$      1    _Dr.Howardsemploymentcontractcontainsnoprovisionaddressingtravelrequirementsorreimbursement  fortravelexpenses.Moreover,bothAndrewMcGill,CEOofCornerstonesparentcompany,andNeilBrand,who t recruitedDr.Howardandnegotiatedhisemploymentcontract,testifiedintheirrespectivedepositionsthatDr.Howard 8 wasnotcompensatedfortravelandthattravelwasnotpartofthesalarynegotiation.(|G2$ !.8NdXXd8         0   d(|3M$ !.8NdXXd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3M$ !.8NdXXd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8Ndd8     _   N8YXXdd8@ _4NINTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE  @WW$ATKNOXVILLE#N_4 #Ԉ &   AssignedonBriefsMay31,2001 L XYXN #NXXY#LARRYDONALDHOWARD,M.D.v.CORNERSTONEMEDICAL J ASSOCIATES,P.C.   ^ XYXN@@ AppealbyPermissionfromthe 4  SupremeCourtSpecialWorkersCompensationAppealsPanel  p ChanceryCourtforHamiltonCounty  \  @@No.980856W.FrankBrown,III,Chancellor H  @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.E200001659SCWCMCVFiledAugust31,_2001_  AV) ` dE<` A     /XYXXXYInthisworkerscompensationcase,the#XYXX/XYB#/XYXXXYԀemployeesustainedinjuriesinanautomobileaccidentwhile  travelingtooneoftwonursinghomesatwhichheworkedasmedicaldirectorpursuanttohis v employmentcontract.Thetrialcourtgrantedsummaryjudgmentinfavoroftheemployer,finding b thattheemployeesinjuriesdidnotoccurinthecourseofhisemployment.TheSpecialWorkers N CompensationAppealsPanelreversedthetrialcourtsdecision,heldthattheinjurieswere : compensable,andremandedthecaseforadeterminationofbenefits.WedisagreewiththePanels &v recommendationandaffirmthetrialcourtsjudgment.#XYXX/XY# b 6 Tenn.CodeAnn.506226(e);JudgmentoftheTrialCourtAffirmed  :   JaniceM.Holder,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichE.RileyAnderson,C.J.,and  FrankF.Drowota,III,andAdolphoA.Birch,Jr.JJ,joined.WilliamM.Barker,J,not  participating.   MichaelA.Wagner,Chattanooga,TN,fortheappellant,LarryDonaldHoward,M.D. r"! W.RandallWilsonandLyndaMotes,Chattanooga,TN,fortheappellee,CornerstoneMedical J$# Associates,P.C. 6% $   R @@OO& OPINION  '^"&   1XYXXXY  #XYXX1XY #Atthetimeoftheaccidentinthiscase,LarryDonaldHoward,M.D.,workedasaphysician (6$( forCornerstoneMedicalAssociates(Cornerstone).Dr.Howardsmainofficewaslocatedinthe )"%) AtriumMemorialBuilding(theAtriumOffice)inChattanooga,Tennessee.Inhispositionwith *&* Cornerstone,heservedasthemedicaldirectoroftwonursinghomes,includingtheLifeCareCenter +&+ NursingHome(LifeCare).UnderthetermsofDr.Howardsemploymentcontract,hewasrequired ,', toseepatientsattheAtriumOffice,thenursinghomes,andvarioushospitals.Heusedhispersonal -(- automobilewhentravelingbetweenthesesites.OnthemorningofJune21,1996,Dr.Howard  receivedaphonecallathishomefromLifeCareadvisinghimthatthenursinghomehadnew  patientswhomDr.Howardneededtosee.WhiletravelingbetweenhishomeandLifeCare,Dr.  Howardwasinjuredinanautomobileaccident.Hesufferedfacialbonefractures,aclosedhead t injury,andthelossofhislefteye. `   ThetrialcourtgrantedCornerstonesmotionforsummaryjudgment.Thecourtfoundthat 8  thefactsofthecasedidnotsatisfyanyoftheexceptionstothegeneralrulethattraveltoandfrom $ t workdoesnotfallwithinthecourseofemployment.Asaresult,thecourtfoundthatDr.Howards  ` injurieswerenotcompensable.  L    Dr.Howardappealed,andtheappealwasreferredtotheSpecialWorkers'Compensation $  AppealsPanelpursuanttoTenn.CodeAnn.50-6-225(e)(3).ThePaneldisagreedwiththetrial   courtsruling.ThePanelheldthatDr.Howardwasactingwithinthecourseofhisemployment   becausedrivingtoLifeCarefurtheredCornerstonesbusiness.WegrantedCornerstonespetition   forfullCourtreviewpursuanttoTenn.CodeAnn.50-6-225(e)(5).     @&ANALYSIS \   Reviewofanawardofsummaryjudgmentinaworkerscompensationcaseisgovernedby 4 Tenn.R.Civ.P.56._Goodloe_Ԁv.State,36S.W.3d62,65(Tenn.2001). UnderRule56,acourt  p mustreviewtherecordwithoutapresumptionofcorrectnesstodeterminewhethertheabsenceof  \ genuineandmaterialfactualissuesentitle[sic]the_movant_Ԁtojudgmentasamatteroflaw.Id. H (quoting_Finister_Ԁv.HumboldtGen.Hosp.,Inc.,970S.W.2d435,437-38(Tenn.1998)).We must 4 viewtheevidenceinthelightmostfavorabletothenon-movingpartyandmustalsodrawall   reasonableinferencesinfavorofthenon-movingparty1XYXXXY.McCannv._Hatchett_,19S.W.3d218,219   (Tenn.2000). Summaryjudgmentisonlyappropriatewhenthefactsandthelegalconclusions  drawnfromthefactsreasonablypermitonlyoneconclusion.#XYXX1XYy#1XYXXXYԀWhitakerv.WhirlpoolCorp.,32  S.W.3d222,228(Tenn.Ct.App.2000).    Acompensableworkerscompensationinjurymustariseoutofandoccurinthecourseof X  employment.Tenn.CodeAnn.50-6-102(12);Cunninghamv._Shelton_ԀSec.Serv.,Inc.,46S.W.3d D! 131,135(Tenn.2001). Thephraseinthecourseofreferstotime,placeandcircumstances,and 0"  arisingoutofreferstocauseororigin.#XYXX1XY#1XYXXXYHillv.EagleBendMfg.,Inc.,942S.W.2d483,487(Tenn. #l! 1997).#XYXX1XYZ#1XYXXXYԀThegeneralruleisthatanemployeeisnotactingwithinthecourseofemploymentwhenthe $X" employeeisgoingtoorcomingfromworkunlesstheinjuryoccursontheemployerspremises. $D # _Lollar_Ԁv.WalMartStores,Inc.,767S.W.2d143,150(Tenn.1989);#XYXX1XY#Ԁ1A.Larson,TheLawof %0!$ WorkmensCompensation15.11(1994).Iftheemployerprovidesaparkinglotforitsemployees, &"% theparkinglotisconsideredpartoftheemployerspremises._Lollar_,767S.W.2dat150.ThisCourt '#& hasextendedthepremisesruletoallowrecoverywhenanemployeeisinjuredwhilecrossinga (#' publicstreetbetweentheemployersworkfacilityandparkinglot.Copelandv.Leaf,Inc.,829 )$(  S.W.2d140,144(Tenn.1992).However, [once]theemployeehasexitedtheparkingareaand |*%) beginstravelingonpersonaltime,awayfromtheemployerspremises,heisnolongerinthecourse  ofemployment._McCurry_Ԁv.ContainerCorp.ofAmerica,982S.W.2d841,845(Tenn.1998).     Tennesseehasrecognizedcertainexceptionstothe goingandcomingrule.Forexample, t thisCourtrecognizedthe specialerrandruleexceptioninStephensv.MaximaCorp.,774S.W.2d ` 931(Tenn.1989).Underthe specialerrandruleexception,anemployeemaybecompensatedfor L  anoffpremisesinjury whileperformingsomespecialact,assignmentormissionatthedirection 8  oftheemployer.Id.at934.Anotherexceptionappliestoinjuriessustainedbyemployeestraveling $ t inacompanycarwhilegoingtoorcomingfromwork._Eslinger_Ԁv.F&BFrontierConstr.Co.,618  ` S.W.2d742,744(Tenn.1981)( ItiswellsettledlawinthisStatethatwheretransportationis  L  furnishedbyanemployerasanincidentoftheemployment,aninjurysufferedbytheemployeewhile  8  goingtoorreturningfromhisworkinthevehiclefurnishedarisesoutofandiswithinthecourseof $  theemployment.).     InPoolv.MetricConstructors,Inc.,681S.W.2d543,544(Tenn.1984),weheldthatthe   employeesneedtocarryhisowncarpentrytoolsinhistruck,combinedwithaprovisionfortravel   reimbursementintheemploymentcontract,wassufficienttoremovethecasefromthegeneralrule p ofnoncompensabilityingoingandcomingcases. Ingeneral,wehaveallowedcoveragewherethe \ journeyitselfisasubstantialpartoftheservicesforwhichtheworkmanwasemployedand H compensated.Id.(quotingSmithv.RoyalGlobeIns.Co.,Inc.,551S.W.2d679,681(Tenn. 4 1977)).Seealso1A.Larson,TheLawofWorkmensCompensation1XYXXXY16.00(1994).#XYXX1XYK*#ԀThereason  p forthisexceptionisthat theemploymentimposesthedutyupontheemployeetogofromplaceto  \ placeatthewilloftheemployerintheperformanceofdutyandtherisksoftravelaredirectly H incidenttotheemploymentitself.Smith,551S.W.2dat681(quotingCent.Sur.&Ins.Corp.v. 4 Court,162Tenn.477,480,36S.W.2d907,908(1931)).     ThePanelcitedthisCourtsopinioninMcCannv._Hatchett_,19S.W.3d218(Tenn.2000),  concludingthatDr.Howardwas actingrationallytofurthertheemployersbusinesswhenhe  traveledfromhishometoLifeCare.ThePanelthereforeheldthatDr.Howardwasactinginthe  courseofhisemployment.InMcCann,theemployeedrownedinahotelswimmingpoolwhileon l anoutoftownbusinesstrip.Id.at220.ThisCourtfoundthedeathcompensable_under_Ԁthemajority X  ruleallowingrecoveryfor travelingemployees.Id.at221. D!   A travelingemployeeisanemployeeworkingawayfromtheregularjobsite.Id.at220. #l! Inthemajorityofjurisdictions,anemployee whoseworkentailstravelawayfromtheemployer's $X" premisesisconsideredtobewithinthecourseofemploymentthroughouttheentiretrip.1A. $D # Larson,TheLawofWorkmensCompensation25.00(1994).The travelingemployeeexception %0!$ isgenerallyappliedtoemployeeswhotravelextensivelytofurthertheemployersbusiness,suchas &"% travelingsalesmen.SeeSmith,551S.W.2dat681.Thetravelisanintegralpartofthejoband '#& differsfromanordinarycommuterstravel,therebyexposingthetravelingemployeetogreaterrisks. (#' Seeid.Dr.HowardsdrivefromhishometoLifeCaredoesnotfallunderthe travelingemployee )$(  exception.Instead,weagreewiththetrialcourtsassessmentthatDr.Howardstravelwas |*%) incidental_atbest,thathisworkboundariesweredefinable,andthathisemploymentplacedhimat  nogreaterriskthananyothermotoristonthehighway.   _  InSharpv.Northwestern_Natl_ԀIns.Co.,654S.W.2d391(Tenn.1983),this_Court_Ԁheldthat t anemployeewhowasoncallatalltimesandtraveledtodifferentjobsitescouldnotrecover ` workerscompensationbenefitsforaninjuryresultingfromanautomobileaccidentwhiledriving L  homefromwork.Sharp,654S.W.2dat39192. 8  ____8  Thereasonsupportingthisruleisevident:traveltoandfromworkisnot,ordinarily,  ` ariskofemployment.Rather,drivingtoworkfallsintothegroupofallthosethings  L  aworkermustdoinpreparationfortheworkday,suchasdressing;anddrivinghome  8  fromworkisoftenaprerequisitetogettinghome.Whilethistravelissome $  modicumofbenefittotheemployer,traveltoandfromworkisprimarilyforthe   benefitoftheemployee:ifhedoesntpresenthimselfattheworkplace,heisnot   compensatedforhislabors.    _Id._Ԁat392.Wewentontodistinguishcasesinwhichanemployeemayrecoverforaninjury p sustainedwhiletravelingfor_work: \ ___8  Thesecaseshaveincommontheelementofanundefinableboundaryforthe 4 beginningandendingoftheclaimantsworkenvironment.Theverynatureofthe  p employmentsrenderedthatenvironmentamorphous.Andyet,itiscertainthe  \ claimantswereplacedincircumstanceswhichweredirectlyrelatedtotheir H employment.And,therefore,injuriesarisingoutofthosecircumstanceswere 4 compensable.    _Id._    WefindnothinginthepresentcasetodistinguishitfromSharporfromothercasesinwhich  Tennesseecourtshavedeniedbenefitsforinjuriesreceivedduringtraveltoandfromwork.See l Smith,_551_ԀS.W.2dat_681_Ԁ(constructionworkertraveling115milesfromconstructionsitetohome X  was simplyacommuter,eventhoughthedistanceinvolvedwassubstantial,andthesitusofhis D! dutieschangedfromtimetotime);Douglasv.LewisBros.Bakeries,Inc.,477S.W.2d202(Tenn. 0"  1972)(deathofbakerymaintenanceengineertravelingfromhometoworkonemergencycallwas #l! notcompensableeventhoughemployeewassubjecttocallatanyhour).EvenacceptingastrueDr. $X" Howardsassertionthattravelexpenseswerenegotiatedintohissalary,2 0#  1      ׀wedonotfindthatfact $D # _dispositive_Ԁofthisissue.ThequestioniswhetherDr.HowardsjourneybetweenhomeandLifeCare %0!$ wasasubstantialpartofhisemployment,regardlessofwhetherhewasspeciallycompensatedfor &"% thetravel.SeeSmith,551S.W.2dat681;_1_Ԁ_A._ԀLarson,TheLawofWorkmens_Compensation_  16.00(1994)( Theruleexcludingoffpremisesinjuriesduringthejourneytoandfromworkdoes  notapplyifthemakingofthatjourney...whetherornotspeciallycompensatedforisinitselfa  substantialpartoftheserviceforwhichtheworkerisemployed.)(emphasis_added)._ԀNoneofthe t adoptedexceptionstothe goingandcomingruleapplyinthiscase.Wethereforeagreewiththe ` wellreasonedmemorandumopinionandorderofthetrialcourtdenyingbenefitsinthiscase. L      CONCLUSION $ t KF  Dr.Howardsinjuryfallsunderthegeneralruleofnoncompensabilityforinjuriesoccurring  L  duringtraveltoandfromwork.Wethereforeaffirmthetrialcourtsawardofsummaryjudgment  8  infavorofCornerstone.Costsofthisappealaretaxedtotheappellant,LarryDonaldHoward,M.D., $  forwhichexecutionmayissueifnecessary.   __   `     h     ___________________________________ p    `     h     JANICEM.HOLDER,JUSTICE