A hundred years ago, the factories and shop floors of the United States were home to appalling violence. Machines and tools severed digits, mangled limbs, and, with horrifying regularity, killed their operators. Under the liability laws of the day, only one victim in fifteen received reasonable compensation from his employers. That injustice exacerbated already tense labor relations. In Massachusetts, organized labor pressed hard to establish a new, state-sponsored mutual insurer; the Chamber of Commerce agreed. In 1911, the legislature overhauled workers’ compensation, chartering the Massachusetts Employers Insurance Association to mitigate the hazards faced by ordinary workers.

Today, that company is known as Liberty Mutual. Over the last four years, Edmund Kelly, its CEO until last year, cashed in more than $200 million in compensation. That haul places him among the most highly paid executives of any corporation, even in this age of outsized executive pay. But there is a special irony to Kelly’s situation. The company he runs is the same insurer chartered by Massachusetts a century ago. Liberty Mutual still spreads risks among its policyholders, but now it also concentrates rewards in the hands of its executives. It has, in effect, inverted the logic of mutuality on which it was founded.

In late medieval Europe, as insurance began to assume a recognizable form, insurers would write policies on anything the traffic would bear. Contracts were sold to mitigate the risks of trade, insuring against the deaths of trading partners, heads of state, or other figures whose dying might have financial consequences. But nothing prevented a man from wagering on any life he chose, could he find an insurer who would accept his bet. Speculative life insurance flourished. Contracts on the life of Admiral Byng saw premiums rise and fall with each day’s testimony at his court martial, and paid off handsomely after his execution. When George II took to the field with his army ahead of the Battle of Dettingen, insurers offered 3:1 odds on his survival. In one particularly callous instance, when hundreds of Palatine refugees were stranded and starving on the outskirts of London, Lloyd’s sold contracts on the number who would remain alive by particular dates.

It was the invention of mutual insurance that rescued the industry’s reputation and enabled its explosive growth, by aligning risk with reward and harnessing financial innovations to serve a public interest. The insurance societies and associations created by English reformers at the turn of the eighteenth century rejected the purely transactional relationships favored by commercial insurers, with individuals placing bets that would pay off in the event of tragedy or misfortune. In their stead, they erected contractual communities, their members pledged to mutual assistance. “Ensuring of Life I cannot admire,” wrote Daniel Defoe in 1702, endorsing instead “a Number of People entering into a Mutual Compact to Help one another, in case any Disaster or Distress fall upon them.”

Mutual insurers enabled the simultaneous pursuit of commercial and communal advantage. Holding communal mortality low kept benefits high, and profits were distributed among the members in the form of regular dividends, making the good health of the community the surest path to profit. The premiums created a pool of capital that could be deployed to some socially beneficial purpose. Liberty, for example, pioneered workplace safety measures, and then distributed the resulting savings back to its members in the form of dividends. Members took these measures seriously not only for their own sake, but also because they were the ones who stood to profit from the resulting gains. The community governed itself, electing its own directors. The alchemy of mutuality transformed insurers from abetters of private speculation into enablers of public virtue.

The example of mutual insurers profoundly altered public expectations for the entire industry. Over the years that followed, governments enacted a series of measures to distance insurance from gambling, and to force even commercial firms to behave more like public utilities than purely private ventures. In 1774, Britain banned the use of insurance as a vehicle to wager on the misfortunes of others, requiring an insurable interest to be present in any contract. The nineteenth century brought ever tighter regulation, including oversight of premiums.

Mutual insurance flourished, bursting into full flower on our own side of the Atlantic. Hundreds of fraternal and social groups offered a wide array of benefits on the mutual model, as did mutual corporations chartered solely to provide different varieties of insurance. To many Americans, insurance seemed a powerful tool for addressing social inequality and reducing the risks of an unstable and uncertain world, particularly in its mutual form. So it was unsurprising that when, in 1911, Massachusetts pioneered workers’ compensation insurance, it settled on a state-subsidized mutual company as its vehicle for the reform.

The act that chartered Liberty Mutual offers a grisly testament to the terrible costs of industrial labor. It specified the benefits to be paid by the new insurer, or by others offering similar policies. “For the loss by severance of both hands at or above the wrist,” one clause detailed, “or both feet at or above the ankle, or the loss of one hand and one foot, or the entire and irrecoverable loss of the sight of both eyes,” a worker was to receive a bonus of half a week’s pay, “but not more than ten dollars nor less than four dollars,” and only for the next hundred weeks. That maximum of a thousand dollar payout for a double amputee was a huge advance, but even then, formed a sharp contrast with executive compensation. The Industrial Accident Board, set up to oversee the system, paid its chair an annual salary of $6,500–as much in one year as the lifetime compensation for thirteen severed hands.

It is a reminder that the mutual movement never aimed to establish perfect social justice, nor to achieve precise equality of outcome. Insurance aimed to mitigate risk, both by providing incentives to reduce it and by taking relatively small sums from each participant and aggregating them into large payouts for the unfortunate victims. It rounded off the jagged edges of the modern economy.

By the time Kelly arrived, in 1992, Liberty Mutual had grown a long way from these early roots, with operations in every state and around the world. It had diversified into the auto, fire, life, and reinsurance markets. But it was struggling to stay competitive. In 1996, Liberty led a push for legislation authorizing mutuals to place their assets into holding companies, which could in turn sell stock. It cited better access to capital markets, easier acquisitions, and simplified accounting. Critics envisioned executives pursuing rapid growth and commensurately rising compensation. In theory, at least, mutuals were owned by their policyholders, to whom executives were accountable. Profits were passed on to policyholders in the form of regular dividends. The hybrid holding-company structure muddied the waters.

Liberty was the first mutual to take advantage of the new law. It converted to a mutual holding company in 2001 over the outraged howls of watchdogs, who believed policyholders were being shorn of ownership without sufficient compensation. Over the next decade, Liberty Mutual became wildly successful and profitable, gobbling up smaller competitors and growing into a Fortune 100 corporation. And an increasing share of its revenues were captured by the firm’s executives, instead of being booked as profits and distributed to its policyholders. Kelly, paid roughly $3 million when he pushed through the reorganization, took home more than $50 million in salary, incentives, and deferred compensation in 2011, his final year as CEO. Liberty Mutual leased a fleet of five corporate jets to fly its senior managers around in style. In 2010, it paid its top nine executives more than the Red Sox shelled out for their starting nine.

The simplest explanation is a massive failure of corporate governance. There is ample evidence to bear that out, beginning with large salaries and tight social ties among board members. Blaming governance, however, mistakes cause for effect.

Liberty’s shifting corporate structure reflected a much deeper shift in values. When he pushed for partial demutualization, Kelly labeled the mutual form “archaic.” Only a few policyholders protested. Most confirmed Kelly’s judgment with their silence–either unaware that their purchase of an insurance policy had brought them into a community of mutual obligation or preferring to restrict themselves to a purely transactional relationship. If Kelly walked away with the keys, it was because too few policyholders felt enough ownership to stop him.

As the mutual ideal eroded, so, too, did the conception of insurers as public utilities. Insurance giant AIG, for example, enthusiastically embraced synthetic Collateralized Debt Obligations. After a two-century hiatus, insurance returned to the business of selling policies to people who had no stake in the assets on which they wagered. Even worse, although the gains accrued to private individuals, the public remained on the hook for any failures.

The same holds true of Edmund Kelly’s career. As CEO, he placed big bets with other people’s money. There is little question that Kelly performed well, even superbly, during his tenure at the company. But that was also the job he was hired to do, and which he originally performed for a small fraction of the pay (if you consider $3 million a small fraction). There is no indication that Kelly believed his primary obligations were to his policyholders, or to society at large.

For Kelly, profits are all that matter. “It wouldn’t have happened if the company hadn’t done well,” he said, defending his compensation, “and I’m not going to apologize for the company doing well.” It is a theory of social welfare most recently and clearly articulated by a former partner of Mitt Romney’s, whose new book disputes any suggestion that “risk takers, as a whole, are overpaid,” arguing that if wealth were twice as concentrated, and risk more highly rewarded, society as a whole would benefit.

Mutuals once operated by a very different moral logic, in which communal advances led to gains for every individual member, and in which individual losses were compensated by communal aid. The community that bore the risks reaped the rewards. Today, Liberty Mutual still aggregates many small premiums into a few large payouts, but its primary beneficiaries are now its own managers. It still rewards its policyholders for minimizing their risks, but now dangles far more lavish rewards before its risk-taking executives.

Ted Kelly believes that moving from mutual responsibility to the pursuit of private gain has benefited everyone. It has certainly benefited him.

Like most people interested in the Illinois workers compensation system, we have been reading the Belleville News-Democrat’s unfolding coverage about the Illinois Department of Corrections debacle at the Menard Correctional Center. It seems that over the past several years there have been a large number of claims for repetitive stress injuries reported by the staff at the prison. The newspaper seems to think that there is widespread fraud involved with the prison claims, at least that is what they are telling their readers. But a recent article by the newspaper demonstrates that the problem is much more complex. It identifies some underlying issues that must be addressed before any conclusions can be reached. It also highlights how socially irresponsible it is for the critics to try to cast the cloud of “fraud” on the entire workers’ compensation system in an effort to sway public opinion that reforms are needed.

On May 2, 2012, the newspaper published an article entitled “Department of Corrections chief calls Menard workers comp claims ‘fraud.’” That wasn’t exactly what the article quoted the Chief as saying, but we’ll give them the benefit of the doubt as to his intent. What is most enlightening for readers who aren’t familiar with this situation is the revelation that the DOC has been aware of the high number of workers who developed repetitive stress injuries at Menard for quite some time – and has done nothing about it. Some readers will undoubtedly view this revelation as being that the DOC was aware of the alleged “fraud.” There was a lot of fraud, and the DOC was doing nothing about it, seemed to be the import of the story. One can sense a witch-hunt is already underway because the legislature and critics continue to fixate on the idea of “fraud” while they ignore the glaring issues that are staring right at them.

Readers who are paying attention to this unfolding story will recognize there is something more in the Department’s revelation. It is just more evidence that the DOC had to be aware of the ergonomic problems at the prison for some time, and did nothing to fix them. In fact, the DOC was concerned enough about the number of claims at Menard that it had the work environment studied by a medical expert. After an extensive consideration of the facts and examination of the prison, the Department’s own expert, concluded that the work activities at Menard contributed to the development of repetitive stress injuries.

Looking back over the past 25 years I can remember my frustration early in my practice with a national manufacturing plant in the Centralia, Illinois area. In my mind, you couldn’t have designed a better environment for the development of repetitive stress injuries if you tried. They had it all, repetitive flexion and extension of the wrist while grasping a heavy object with a good dose of vibration tossed in. I was young and naive enough to think that the company cared about its employees and would fix the problem. Yet, this company was content to simply pay the workers’ for their injuries rather than eliminating the cause of the injuries in the first place. So too, it seems, that some time ago the Department of Corrections made the economic decision to accept liability for the injuries rather than fix the conditions that cause them. More than likely the Department didn’t actually make the conscious decision to continue to place their workers in harm’s way, they just made the decision to not do anything, perhaps for funding reasons, but the result is the same. They chose accept the collateral damage to the workers because it was cheaper or easier to pay them than to fix the problems that cause the injuries.

So let’s summarize what we know at this point so we have a clear understanding of what is really going on with the DOC’s Menard prison cases and where the blame truly lies.
1. Some time ago the DOC noticed an increased number of repetitive stress claims being made at the Menard Prison. No doubt wondering whether the increase in claims was legitimate, the DOC contracted with a medical expert on the subject to perform a study to determine whether the work environment was really a factor.
2. The DOC’s own medical expert came to the conclusion that the work environment at the prison does contribute to the development of repetitive stress injuries. What the DOC did after receiving this information is still unclear, but the obvious result of their decision was to not to fix the problems and accept liability for the resulting injuries.
3. Workers at the prison continued to develop symptoms of repetitive stress injuries. They went to see their doctor for treatment.
4. Each worker underwent electronic nerve testing which documented that their nerves were impaired and weren’t working normally. The worker then had surgery to remove the impairment on their nerves in order to relieve their symptoms.
5. The worker’s doctor attributed the nerve impairment to the work done at the prison.
6. The worker filed a workers’ compensation claim for the injury.
7. The Arbitrator of the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission heard the evidence presented by the injured worker in every one of these cases to determine whether the worker proved their case and, in particular, that they established their condition was causally related to the work they did.
8. The DOC was also given the opportunity to present evidence in every one of these cases that the worker did not have a repetitive stress injury, the worker’s injury was minimal and did not require surgery, the tests were invalid, the worker’s injury was not caused by their work, the worker sustained no disability from the injury, and/or that the claim was untruthful or fraudulent. Now presumably some cases were tossed out because the DOC was able to raise a valid defense on some of the issues. But, as to the issue of whether the work caused the condition, there just isn’t much of a defense when DOC’s own expert has already condemned the work environment, so a large number of the claims were found to be meritorious and the Commission awarded compensation benefits.
So just where in this process do the critics of the workers (Steps 3-5) and the workers compensation system (Steps 6-8) suggest there is fraud? Is the newspaper suggesting that the workers really did not have symptoms? If so, how do they explain that the workers’ doctors are able to diagnose repetitive stress injuries in the first place? Are they suggesting that the workers and the doctors are acting together in perpetrating (sic) this fraud? If so, how do they explain the electronic test results which also demonstrate the existence of a nerve injury? Do they suggest that the worker, the doctor, and the manufacturer of the medical machinery used to perform the nerve tests are all involved in a vast conspiracy to present fraudulent compensation claims? What about the DOC’s own doctor? Was he involved too? While we certainly don’t speak to the origins or credibility of any particular claim or the number of claims, just what part of the process contains all this widespread fraud that has been bandied about? If the workers do, in fact, have repetitive stress injuries, need treatment, and can prove their claim then just where is the fraud in them presenting the claim or in the Commission accepting the claim and awarding benefits?

While the newspaper has been quite critical of the arbitrators and the workers compensation system in general, it is rather apparent that there’s a huge amount of frustration in the Illinois Worker’s Compensation Commission concerning the Department of Corrections handling of these claims as well. This frustration is demonstrated quite well by the findings in the recently decided case of Wellborn v. The State of Illinois Menard Correctional Center., In that case, the Arbitrator and Commission concluded that:

“Respondent’s [Department of Correction's] conduct in this case is appalling! It initially accepted the claim as compensable, authorized medical care and paid TTD benefits. Then, without any justification in law or fact, without any change of the evidence, decided to renege on its word. This is bad faith claims handling. Respondent’s own evidence supports Petitioner’s claim. Respondent continues in its practice and policy of unfairness towards employees who file repetitive trauma claims. It mocks the work comp system and abuses its resources.”
It should be plainly apparent to anyone interested in the Menard situation that the critics attempt to condemn the workers compensation system is off the mark. That isn’t to say that there hasn’t been a problem here and there with the system, as there are problems with all systems. But the Menard circumstances point to a deeper and more complex cause, and a lot of unanswered questions. Why did the DOC choose not to fix the problems in the first place and why didn’t they fix them when the claims continued to mount? Has the DOC now recognized that it is costing more money to pay for the injuries than it would have cost to fix the problem to begin with?
It certainly comes as no surprise that the Department chief would now claim that fraud is involved, and that critics of the system would jump on the bandwagon. It is the chic thing to do in order to avoid a critical analysis on the subject.

Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” Law has come under intense scrutiny with the death of Trayvon Martin. After watching the endless news coverage and criminal justice shows on television covering the story, it may interest you that Illinois has adopted some laws, itself, addressing self defense and defense of one’s home.

Illinois has generally adopted a “Castle Doctrine” or “Castle laws”, if you will. Generally, the law affords certain protections and immunities for those who use force under certain circumstances without becoming liable to prosecution. You can read the statutes below.

720 ILCS 5/2-8) (from Ch. 38, par. 2-8)
Sec. 2-8. “Forcible felony”. “Forcible felony” means treason, first degree murder, second degree murder, predatory criminal sexual assault of a child, aggravated criminal sexual assault, criminal sexual assault, robbery, burglary, residential burglary, aggravated arson, arson, aggravated kidnapping, kidnapping, aggravated battery resulting in great bodily harm or permanent disability or disfigurement and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.

(720 ILCS 5/7-1) Sec. 7-1. Use of force in defense of person.

A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or another against such other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or another, or the commission of a forcible felony.

(720 ILCS 5/7-2) Sec. 7-2. Use of force in defense of dwelling.

A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate such other’s unlawful entry into or attack upon a dwelling. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if:
(a) The entry is made or attempted in a violent, riotous, or tumultuous manner, and he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent an assault upon, or offer of personal violence to, him or another then in the dwelling, or
(B ) He reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of a felony in the dwelling.

(720 ILCS 5/7-3) Sec. 7-3. Use of force in defense of other property.

A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate such other’s trespass on or other tortious or criminal interference with either real property (other than a dwelling) or personal property, lawfully in his possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his immediate family or household or of a person whose property he has a legal duty to protect. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

(720 ILCS 5/7-8) Sec. 7-8. Force likely to cause death or great bodily harm.

(a) Force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm, within the meaning of Sections 7-5 and 7-6 includes:
(1) The firing of a firearm in the direction of the person to be arrested, even though no intent exists to kill or inflict great bodily harm; and
(2) The firing of a firearm at a vehicle in which the person to be arrested is riding.
(B ) A peace officer’s discharge of a firearm using ammunition designed to disable or control an individual without creating the likelihood of death or great bodily harm shall not be considered force likely to cause death or great bodily harm within the meaning of Sections 7-5 and 7-6.

Some of you have seen this list but for those who have not, the allegations for Employer Fraud were nearly $2 billion in 2011: Top 10 Employer/ Insurer Fraud Cases 2011

Total Amount of Alleged Fraud: $1,965,677,626.20
Total Amount of Restitution Ordered or Recovered: 506,050,000.00

1. AIG agrees to pay $450 million in fines for under-reporting $1 billion in workers’ comp insurance

American International Group, Inc., AIG, agreed to pay seven insurers $450 million to settle a long-running case over an alleged $1 billion workers’ compensation under-reporting scheme.

Insurance Networking News; www.insurancenetworking.com , 04-29-11

2. Small businesses face closure in workers’ comp scandal

After the state of New York hit Compensation Risk Managers, an outside administration company that monitored self-insured trusts, with a $400 million lawsuit, the company filed for bankruptcy, leaving the state with no perceived option than to go after the businesses that paid into the trusts. The businesses say they are the victims in this fraud, which totals almost $1 billion. $48 million has been recovered so far.

Crain’s New York Business; www.crainsnewyork.com , 12-09-11

3. Fraudster trades Prada for prison blues- ‘Real Housewives’ wannabe breaks California workers’ comp record

Devon Lynn Kile was sentenced to ten years of probation with a possible ten years in prison for her role in a workers’ compensation fraud with her husband, Michael Petronella. The couple under-reported payroll and the number of employees they employed, committing a total of $30 million in insurance fraud. They used their companies as a personal piggy bank to support their lavish lifestyle, which included $500,000 in jewels, Rolex watches, and two Ferrari’s, a Bentley, and a Range Rover. $2.8 million has been ordered in restitution.

There’s no question that using a valet service certainly has its benefits. We’ve all been in the downtown area and understand that street parking is scarce or non-existent.

Most times, valet parking attendants will ultimately park your car in the street while feeding your meter. On rare occasions, will the valet service have a designated lot or garage to park your car. When the valet attendant parks your car on the street, you always run the risk of receiving a parking citation.

When your car is returned to you at the end of the evening, you may be completely ignorant of the fact that you received a parking ticket. You would only learn of that fact once you received a notification in the mail.

So, to protect yourself, ALWAYS keep your valet parking receipts.
According to Chicago ordinance 4-232-080(d), you have 60 days from the date of your ticket to submit a “clear legible copy of a valet receipt” in order to contest the ticket. Is this cumbersome? No question. But with a parking ticket costing about $50, it may be worth the trouble.

Kevin T. Yen, Attorney-at-Law

Statement by Illinois Trial Lawyers Association in Response to ATRA’s Annual Junk Research Report

(December 15, 2011)

It’s clear to anybody paying the least bit of attention that large, deep-pocket corporations increasingly dominate our political process.

The American Tort Reform Association (ATRA) has received funding from a “who’s who” of corporate giants including Altria (formerly Philip Morris), Dow Chemical, Exxon, Aetna, Geico, State Farm, Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson. They are determined to block citizens from accessing courts so that they may escape accountability when their products or actions injure or kill innocent victims.

The truth is these corporations don’t fear frivolous lawsuits; they know our justice system screens out the very few suits that are without merit. What they fear are meritorious lawsuits – actions brought by citizens against corporations producing unsafe products, polluting our environment, swindling their employees to pad their profits, or otherwise acting irresponsibly.

American citizens rely on courts to hold these corporations accountable. It’s often only through our courts that citizens can get a fair shake, particularly when taking on such powerful special interests, and it’s appalling these businesses have devoted themselves to undermining our courts – the one place citizens may hold them accountable for their negligence.

This recycled annual “report” has been widely discredited and ridiculed in past years. It has been shown, time and time again, to be biased, junk “research” that only proves tort reform is simply a scheme by powerful corporations to avoid accountability in the courtroom and stack the deck against everyday Americans.

We oppose efforts designed to allow corporations to evade their legal responsibilities, even when they are grossly negligent, and we will oppose efforts to weaken basic legal protections and further stack the deck against the average person. This so-called “report” is nothing more than a public relations stunt designed to further their political and legislative strategies to prevent individual citizens from exercising their rights.

The “reform” they seek only takes away your right to receive justice and to hold corporate wrongdoers accountable for their actions. Our legal system serves as a powerful deterrent against corporate misconduct. Our citizens deserve better.

In an extremely important case, where a person suffered two work related injuries to the left leg while working in the family business and he subsequently discovered a blood clot in his leg was placed on Coumadin therapy to thin his blood. Workers compensation denied blood thinning medication at the time of the accidental injury and thereafter taking the position was not reasonable or necessary.

The workers compensation commission stated that Coumadin is a mediation requiring a prescription monitoring is appropriate when awarding Coumadin as a medical benefit. Therefore, it is appropriate to also award doctor’s examinations, lab work medications and other treatment needed in connection with a Coumadin regimen. The workers compensation commission awarded all these things to the injured party in addition awarded the injured party 5% disability and their lost time.

The moral of the story is that you do not always have to have a physical injury directly related to an accident at work in order to be awarded benefits pursuant to law.

Where medical and rehabilitation benefits are an issue in a workers compensation case, should the lawyers not be able to agree, the workers’ compensation commission can decide the reasonableness and/or necessity of the cost of certain testing.

A registered nurse injured both shoulders at work. Her left shoulder pain resolved but the right shoulder continued to be painful. After consertive care failed, she had surgery and eventually returned to work but continued to participate in physical therapy. Because she was achy and stiff, her doctor recommended a functional capacity evaluation. A workers compensation insurance company and her employer refused to authorize that and this poor lady suffered another injury to her arm. Again the functional capacity evaluation was ordered. Many times workers compensation insurance companies take unreasonable positions to save money or deny workers their rightful benefits.

The workers compensation commission found that the functional capacity evaluation was reasonable necessary and the workers compensation insurance companies were responsible for payment. Many times in workers compensation claims the judge or arbitrator, places greater importance on the opinion of the treating doctor rather than an independent medical evaluator chosen by the workers compensation carrier.

Work related accidental injuries can be a maddening process if someone attempts to represent themselves. That is why lawyers with great experience that are highly professional can make a significant difference in your case. For example, a person that was employed as a service technician and pipe fitter was injured. This particular person had a company provided vehicle which he drove to and from his home to work. Since travel was required on his job, he did not report to the shop in the morning but merely went straight to the site where he was dispatched for his first job. To any person who is an on-call service technician that sustains an injury despite not leaving home can win a wells comp case. The employer can be ordered to pay workers compensation benefits. In this case, the technician was performing a customary practice that required removing pipes that were not needed on the job from his van and was injured. Therefore, his injury while unloading un-needed pipes before travelling to the dispatched work site arose out of on the course of his employment.

In another interesting case, a police officer secured benefits despite conducting a personal errand before his accident. The injured party, a deputy sheriff, left his assigned patrol area while on duty to collect personal mail at the post office 3 miles outside the county border in which he worked. As he was exiting the post office, he received a radio assignment to assist the deputy in transporting a passenger. While travelling to the location, the deputy sheriff was involved in a motor vehicle accident. Although he was suspended from duty without pay for eight days for leaving his assigned post without permission, he was awarded workers compensation benefits on appeal because he was on his way back to his post and he resumed his employment. Just because a person violates rules of his employment does not mean he can be deprived of workers compensation benefits.