WPC* L Tp/J.NЅ.,G~?&bHHxDDp vKK~ZaX, uyGcnF`ޒT,oJMm&*6B tg<[q*?sŃav΢hkcs[SډZVkb`4Wet@+%a>]ػtU'@hQ$cƲ@]hL;8siB<9S|l~*t^N n5kms`۶^_9r*{.w{cƬۣ\FȞǍVy ʢcnqe֩NpiN ]e<<_Ԯ>xStOJ[P\}Yr|\cIsYDr=e_wa½V['G E \_b#\ % ^ # 0/ UN w 4 z  i x mz   _ %  U@NU*Eb 0'''' B  0/ D3 D- 0K33 AS~ 0 0D; AHP LaserJet 40500%+ (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman RegularyG*\P 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|xU Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(9 Z(Times New Roman %2A`Arial- -(|G2R$ !..8Dudd8         0  X X d(|3$ !..8Dudd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3$ !..8Dudd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8Dudd8     _Du8 XXdd8  KDu@@7 7 INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE  SPECIALWORKERSCOMPENSATIONAPPEALSPANEL & @@ATKNOXVILLE#DuK# L March15,2001Session "r X XDu #DuXX #RONALDSCOTT_REVIS_v._ROANE_ԀCOUNTY,TENNESSEE,etal.X XDu   p @@ DirectAppealfromtheCircuitCourtfor_Roane_ԀCounty  p @@No.11574RussellE.Simmons,Jr.,CircuitJudge  \ @@*AV) ` dE<` A   No.E200001709_WC_ԄR3CVMailedMay1,2001   #DuXX #X XDuFILED:SEPTEMBER5,2001   AV) ` dE<` A        ThisworkerscompensationappealhasbeenreferredtotheSpecialWorkersCompensation  AppealsPaneloftheSupremeCourtinaccordancewithTenn.CodeAnn.506225(e)(3)for  hearingandreportingtotheSupremeCourtoffindingsoffactandconclusionsoflaw.Thetrial v courtdismissedthecomplaintfindingtheinjurydidnotariseoutofandinthecourseof b employment.Onappealitwasdeterminedtheinjuryaroseoutofemploymentbutdidnotoccurin N thecourseofemployment.Judgmentofthetrialcourtisaffirmed.#DuXX #X XDu :    Tenn.CodeAnn.506225(e)(1999)AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourtis b Affirmed  N     Thayer,Sp.J.#DuX N#X X.Du,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichAnderson,C.J.andByers,Sr.J., & joined.  RebeccaL.Hicks,Dayton,Tennessee,fortheAppellant,RonaldScott_Revis_.  MichaelK.Atkins,Knoxville,Tennessee,fortheAppellees,_Roane_ԀCounty,Tennessee,and_Roane_ r!  CountyEmergencyMedicalServices. ^"! C   OPINION #DuXX #X XDu 6$#     Thisappealpresentsaquestionofwhethertheemployeesinjuryaroseoutofandinthe &^!% courseofhisemployment.Thetrialcourtfoundtheinjurydidnotsooccuranddismissedthe &J"& complaint. '6#'    UndisputedFacts  )%) ?   Theemployee,RonaldScott_Revis_,wasemployedby_Roane_ԀCountyEmergencyMedical +&+ Serviceasaparamedichavingworkedforthisagencyforabouttenyears.Whenworking,hewas ,', generallyondutyforatwentyfourhourperiodandthenoffforaperiodoffortyeighthours.He n-(- wasalsoemployedasaparamedicfortheRheaCountyemergencyservicewhichapparentlydidnot  conflictwithhisworkhoursforRoaneCounty.    DuringthelaterpartofNovember1996,theemployeewasservedwithasubpoenatotestify t inacasependinginthe#DuXX #X XDuԀCircuitCourtatKnoxvilleregardingcertaineventsinconnectionwithhis ` transportationofachildasapatientbytheRoaneCountyambulanceservice.Thesubpoenaalso L  instructedhimtobringcertainrecordsmaintainedoftheevent. 8    December4,1996,thedayheappearedincourttotestify,wasnotaworkdaywithhis  ` employer,RoaneCountyEmergencyMedicalService,buthehadworkedonDecember3rdforthe  L  RheaCountyagencyandgotoffearlyonthemorningofDecember4th.HearrivedinKnoxville  8  about_9:00_Ԁa.m.andleftabout12noon.Onthistrip,hedrovehisownvehicleandwasnot $  reimbursedforanyexpensebyhisemployerbutdidreceivesomecompensationfromtheattorney   whohadissuedthesubpoena.OnthereturntriptohishomeinSpringCity,Tennessee,hewas   involvedinanautomobileaccidentwithanothervehiclewherehesustainedpersonalinjuries.On   crossexaminationhestatedtheaccidentoccurredasheapproachedSpringCity.      IssueonAppeal  \   Thesoleissueonappealiswhethertheinjuryaroseoutofandinthecourseofthe 4 employmentrelationship.  p    GeneralRulesofCompensability  H   Ina_workers_Ԁcompensationaction,theemployeemustestablishbyapreponderanceofthe   evidenceeveryelementofthecase,includingtheexistenceofaworkrelatedinjurybyaccident.Hill   v.EagleBendMfg.,Inc.,942S.W.2d483(Tenn.1997).Anemployeesrighttorecoverbenefits  isbaseduponafindingthattheinjury aroseoutofandwas inthecourseofemployment.Tenn.  CodeAnn.506103(a).Thephrases arisingoutofand inthecourseofarenotsynonymous  butembodydistinctconceptswhichareprimarilybasictoliabilityundertheWorkersCompensation l Law.Knoxv._Batson_,399S.W.2d765(Tenn.1966). Arisingoutofreferstocauseororigin.An X  accidentarisesoutofemploymentwhenitisapparenttotherationalminduponconsiderationofall D! circumstancesthatthereisacasualconnectionbetweenworkrequiredtobedoneandtheresultant 0"  injury._Sandlin_Ԁv.Gentry,300S.W.2d897(Tenn.1957). Inthecourseofreferstotimeandplace. #l! Anaccident_is_Ԁ inthecourseofemploymentifitoccurswhiletheemployeewasperformingaduty $X" theemployeewasemployedtodo._Traverlers_ԀIns.Co.v._Googe_,397S.W.2d368(Tenn.1965). $D #    Analysis  &"%   Thefirstquestionwemustdealwithis_whether_Ԁtheinjuryaroseoutoftheemployment (#' relationship.Generally,thisrequirementissatisfiediftheinjuryhasarationalconnectiontothe )$( employeesworkduties.InthepresentcasetheemployeedrovetoKnoxvilletotestifyincourtas |*%) adirectresultofhisofficialdutiesasaparamedicwiththe_Roane_ԀCountyEmergencyMedical h+&* Service.Haditnotbeenforhisemployment,hewouldnothavemadethetriptoKnoxvilleonthe  dayinquestion.Therefore,weconcludethefirstrequirementhasbeensatisfiedandthattheinjury  aroseoutofhisemployment.    Thesecondquestioniswhethertheinjurywassustainedinthecourseofhisemployment. ` Thisreferstotimeandplace.Onthedayinquestion,theemployeewasnotworkingasitwashis L  dayoff.HedrovehisownvehicletoKnoxvilleandbackanddidnotreceiveanyreimbursementor 8  compensationfromhisemployerforthetrip.Hewasnotrequiredtoappearandtestifyincourtby $ t hisemployerbutwascompelledtomakethetripbyreasonofaprivateattorneyissuingasubpoena.  ` Hewasnotatworkoronamissionforhisemployerwhentheaccidentoccurredandwedonotthink  L  itcouldbesaidthathisofficialdutiesrequiredhimtoappearandtestifyincourt.  8    Theemployercontendsthateveniftheappearanceincourtcouldbeconstruedtobeinthe   courseofhisemployment,hewouldnotbeentitledtorecoversincetheinjurywassustainedwhile   hewasreturningtohishome.     Generally,employeesinjuredwhileenroutetoorfromworkarenotentitledtobenefits p becausetheyhavenotreachedtheirdutystationorplaceofemployment.Woodsv.Warren,548 \ S.W.2d651(Tenn.1977);Smithv.RoyalGlobeIns.Co.,551S.W.2d679(Tenn.1977). H   Theemployeearguestherearerecognizedexceptionstothegoingtoworkandreturningfrom  p workruleandcitesthecaseof_McCammon_Ԁv._Neubert_,651S.W.2d702(Tenn.1983).Itisinsisted  \ thefactsofthepresentcasefallwithintheseexceptions. H   Weareoftheopinionthatwhiletheinjuryinquestiondidariseoutoftheemployment   relationshipwiththeemergencyservicesagency,itdidnotoccurinthecourseoftheemployment.   Therefore,theclaimisnotcompensable.SincewehaveconcludedthetraveltoKnoxvilletotestify  incourtwasnotinthecourseofemployment,wedonotactuallyreachthequestionofwhetherthe  generalruleofgoingtoandcomingfromworkhasapplicationorwhetherthefactsofthecasejustify  applicationofarecognizedexceptiontotherule.Inotherwords,thegoingtoandcomingfromwork l rules,etc._contemplate_Ԁgoingtoorleavingaworkstation. X    Thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisaffirmed.Costsoftheappealaretaxedtotheemployee. 0"     `     h     ___________________________________ &"%    `     h     ROGERE.THAYER,SPECIALJUDGE  '#&  X XXX DuXX @ INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE  @cc$ATKNOXVILLE    RONALDSCOTT_REVIS_,Applicantv. < _ROANE_ԀCOUNTY,TENNESSEE,etal.,Respondents  P .  #X XDuc-#_Roane_ԀCircuit,No.11574 ( x RussellE.Simmons,Jr.,Judge  d .@*AV) ` dE< ` A߈  <    No.E200001709_WC_ԄWCMCV 7  "0@Filed:September5,2001 #  AV) ` dE<` A   #X XXX D-#X XXX  @&JUDGMENT     ThiscaseisbeforetheCourtuponApplicantsmotionforreviewpursuanttoTenn.Code  Ann.506225(e)(5)(B),theentirerecord,includingtheorderofreferraltotheSpecialWorkers' ~ CompensationAppealsPanel,andthePanel'sMemorandumOpinionsettingforthitsfindingsoffact j andconclusionsoflaw,whichareincorporatedhereinbyreference; V   Whereupon,itappearstotheCourtthatthemotionforreviewisnot_welltaken_Ԁandshould .~ beDENIED;and j   Itis,therefore,orderedthatthePanel'sfindingsoffactandconclusionsoflawareadopted B andaffirmed,andthedecisionofthePanelismadethejudgmentoftheCourt.OE N[  E .   CostswillbeassessedtoRonaldScott_Revis_Ԁforwhichexecutionmayissueifnecessary. ?    `     h     PER_CURIAM_ 9  Anderson,C.J.,notparticipating ^! O#2Z X [4#N#X X2Z5#N2Z XXO[  X2ZDuXX O#2Z X [7#N#X X2Z6##DuDuS1##X XDu:7#