After completing the assigned task of mooring a vessel at the port for offloading, the Claimant left work.  While the task only took about an hour to complete, the Claimant was paid for four hours.  Moreover, he was subject to being recalled to the port if the need for his services arose.  In the process of leaving work, while still on port property but in his personal vehicle, the Claimant was involved in a motor vehicle accident causing injuries requiring medical attention.

The Claimant filed a claim for benefits pursuant to the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act.  The Employer/Carrier denied the claim on the basis that the Claimant’s accident and injuries did not arise out of or in the course and scope of employment but was barred by the “going and coming” rule.  While the matter was pending before the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), the Employer/Carrier moved to have the claim dismissed by way of a Motion for Summary Decision.

The facts, as established by the Claimant’s deposition testimony, were not in dispute.  The Claimant asserted that because he was subject to being recalled, he remained on an “on call” status as he was leaving the port, and thus remained in the course and scope of employment when his accident occurred.  Relying on Foster v Massey, 407 F.2d 343 (D.C. Cir. 1968), the ALJ held that being on-call status by itself was not enough.  The ALJ further noted that the fact the Claimant was paid for four hours although the work only took one hour did not render the Claimant’s travel paid for or furnished by the Employer.  The ALJ granted the Motion for Summary Decision and denied the Claimant’s claim for benefits.