The Minnesota Supreme Court addressed the rights of intervenors in workers’ compensation proceedings in the August 12, 2020, decision of Koehnen v. Flagship Marine Company and Auto Owners Insurance Company.

The outcome of the case provided some certainty in the workers’ compensation system by confirming that intervenors risk losing their right to recover payments, or other interests, if they decline to participate in the proceedings. Intervenors are third parties who provide services or paid benefits to or on behalf of an injured worker.

In this case, Keith Johnson, D.C. was provided with notice of the right to intervene and chose not to do so in a pending workers’ compensation proceeding. The employee went on to settle his claim with the employer and insurer, and the intervention interests were resolved with the settlement.

A Workers’ Compensation Judge at the Office of Administrative Hearings then issued an award that extinguished the right for Johnson to recover payments, and shortly thereafter, the chiropractor filed a petition for payment of medical expenses.

The employee, the employer and insurer filed motions to dismiss, which the Compensation Judge granted. Johnson then appealed the decision all the way to the Minnesota Supreme Court after the Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals affirmed the order dismissing Johnson’s petition.

The Court found that the chiropractor chose not to be a party to the case and pursue reimbursement when he failed to participate in the case proceedings. The appellate courts affirmed the chiropractor had no authority or standing to file a petition for reimbursement under the Minnesota Workers’ Compensation Act, or to challenge the ruling that extinguished the chiropractor’s potential intervention interest.

In the end, the Court held that an intervenor who is properly notified of their right to intervene in a workers’ compensation proceeding must either intervene or potentially have their reimbursement rights taken away.

By Tom Davern, Esq., Senior Defense Counsel with SFM’s in-house law firm

It can be challenging to determine whether an employee’s injury is considered work related, even in the typical work environment. Working from home can present unique workers’ compensation issues due to the inevitable mix of work-related and personal activities.

When an employee sustains an injury while engaged in work activities at home, it is a compensable workers’ compensation injury. The standard rule is that if you’re engaged in work activities at home, this will be considered the same as working at the office for the purposes of workers’ compensation. The standard compensability analysis used for each state applies to the home office pretty much the same as it would in the actual office. In Minnesota, you look to see whether the injury happened in the course and scope of employment (time and place) and whether it arose out of the employment (work-related connection). However, it can be a challenging line to draw in the home office environment when you mix in child care, laundry and leisure throughout the workday.

For example, consider a situation where your employee is injured while shoveling the driveway after getting a foot of snow the night before. If the employee needed to clear the driveway to go out on a sales call, it would likely be considered a work-related injury. However, what about a situation where there is only a half inch of snow in the driveway and the employee still decides to shovel before the sales call?  A defense could be raised that the employee was outside of the course and scope of employment because the driveway did not need to be shoveled to get the vehicle out on the road. The employee elected to complete a personal task that was not required in order to continue or further a work purpose.

Injuries during ‘personal comfort’ breaks

SFM’s core states of Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Nebraska and South Dakota all recognize the personal comfort doctrine in some form and to some degree. This means that injuries that occur on the premises during the workday while the employee is attending to personal needs (taking a break) are potentially compensable workers’ compensation claims. The personal comfort doctrine transfers to the home office. The big question is: “Was the injury truly incidental to an authorized break, or did the employee engage in a personal task that removed them from workers’ compensation protection?” This is one area of the law that justifies the use of the legal cliché “case by case” basis.

In Minnesota, an injury was held to be compensable when an employee fell down the stairs after walking from his home office to his kitchen for coffee. At the same time, there is a line an at-home worker can cross that would take the employee outside of the protection of workers’ compensation. So, while incidental injuries incurred during lunch or a break may be compensable, it is not necessarily a work injury.

Imagine an employee decided to hang shingles on a lunch break and fell off the roof. This would be a denied claim, as the employee went outside of the course and scope of employment by engaging in a dangerous personal activity that had no connection to the employment. Another example of a potential denial would be if an employee came down with carpal tunnel syndrome as a result of playing video games every day during breaks. I would argue that this was personal in nature and not an activity subject to the personal comfort doctrine. The pivotal question is whether the employee was truly engaged in a personal comfort activity or had deviated from the employment to engage in an unrelated household chore or activity with no work connection.

Employers responsible to provide safe work environment, regardless of where

Since the home is seen as an extension of the workplace, this means that an employer could also be held liable for a cumulative injury due to a home office setup that’s not ergonomic. Obviously, employers have less control over employees’ home office environments. I would not be surprised to see an increase in cumulative back injury claims due to employees sitting in bad chairs for eight hours a day. It may be a good idea to be proactive with communication with your employees regarding at home ergonomic issues as it could potentially save a workers’ compensation claim down the road.

Navigating the legal and safety issues surrounding working from home can be challenging. Your SFM account team and our in-house attorneys are here to help.

By Jessica Stoeckman, Esq.

When injured workers receiving permanent total disability (PTD) benefits advance to retirement age, the impact on their benefits differs by state.

For example, in Wisconsin and South Dakota, PTD benefits are owed for life. In Iowa and Nebraska, PTD benefits are owed as long as the individual remains disabled.

In Minnesota, depending on the date of injury, an employee receiving PTD benefits under the Minnesota Workers’ Compensation Act will either have benefits for life, will be presumed retired at the age of 67 or 72, or will be eligible for only five years of PTD benefits.

Injuries prior to October 1, 1995

For injuries prior to this date, Minnesota Statute 176 did not provide a presumption of retirement, hence, employees were eligible for lifetime PTD benefits.

Injuries from October 1, 1995 to September 30, 2018

On October 1, 1995, Minnesota Statute 176.101, subdivision 4 was revised to include a presumption of retirement at the age of 67. This presumption is rebuttable, or in other words, the employee could dispute this presumption based upon the employee’s testimony and the totality of the circumstances surrounding retirement.

Factors to be considered include:

1. The employee’s expressed intent to retire or continue working;
2. Whether an application for Social Security benefits was made;
3. Evidence of financial need for employment income and the adequacy of retirement income;
4. Whether the employee had initiated discussion of retirement;
5. Whether the employee engaged in or sought vocational rehabilitation; and
6. Whether the employee was working after age of presumption.

Davidson v. Thermo King, 64 W.C.D. 380 (W.C.C.A. 2004).

If it was clearly established that an employee that was injured beyond the age of 67 had rebutted the presumption of retirement, that employee could receive PTD benefits through his or her lifetime.

Injuries after October 1, 2018

Due to the trend of employees working later in life, for injuries occurring after October 1, 2018, the presumption of retirement was pushed to age 72. 

Additionally, the updated legislation provides a cap of five years if an employee was injured after the age of 67. In other words, if an employee was injured at the age of 69 and deemed permanently and totally disabled, that employee could receive PTD benefits from the age 69 through 74, rather than the potential lifetime of benefits under the earlier legislation.

Tip for employers: Document employees’ references to retirement

If any statement is made by an employee about intent to retire, make a note of the statement for future reference. Employers also should document the circumstances of any retirement discussions, such as who raised the issue and whether the employee approached the employer.

This is not intended to serve as legal advice for individual fact-specific legal cases or as a legal basis for your employment practices.

By Aaron Schmidt, Esq.

With more employees working from home due to the recent COVID-19 outbreak, many policyholders have turned to SFM for answers on liability questions concerning the home office. 

As a starting point, many state courts view the home office as an extension of the workplace. 

In general, injuries sustained by an employee during normal working hours, and during the actual performance of work activities while at home are compensable. This does not, however, mean that injuries sustained by employees in a home office at the employee’s residence are necessarily afforded the same presumption of work relatedness as injuries occurring at the employer’s office. Therefore a careful analysis of the facts is necessary. 

Activities such as maintaining and setting up a home office, snow blowing a driveway, and shoveling snow from the driveway to allow for business travel have been found to be compensable in some states. Furthermore, the travel between an employee’s home and another portion of the employment premises have also been found compensable. 

It is important to note as well that the personal comfort doctrine, which holds compensable injuries sustained on the employer’s premises while attending to personal needs and comforts, has been extended to employees in some states where they were injured in their own homes while on breaks from work in their home office.  As an example, Minnesota courts have found compensable an employee that was injured when he fell down the stairs after leaving his home office on the way to the kitchen to get a cup of coffee.

To learn more about this topic, see our workers’ compensation and the home office telecommuter blog post.

SFM also has a number of other resources related to telecommuting and COVID-19 on our COVID-19 resources page.

This is not intended to serve as legal advice for individual fact-specific legal cases or as a legal basis for your employment practices.

Some work injuries don’t occur at a specific time, but rather they are the result of a degenerative process that takes place over months or years. These are known as repetitive-motion or cumulative injuries.

In Minnesota, they are called “Gillette” injuries, a term that comes from the 1960 Minnesota Supreme Court case of Gillette v. Harold, Inc.

The Gillette case involved an employee who worked as a sales clerk at Harold Department Store. She underwent surgery on her left big toe for a condition that wasn’t work-related. Two months after the surgery, she returned to work and was performing all of her regular duties, which required her to be on her feet most of the day. As time went by, she experienced increasing pain in her right toe. Eventually her doctor said she couldn’t work because the prolonged walking and standing her job required was aggravating her toe. The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that the employee had sustained an injury that was compensable and defined a Gillette injury as, “a personal injury arising out of and in the course of employment as a result of the cumulative effect of repetitive minute trauma over a period of time.”

Deciding whether a compensable cumulative injury has occurred

To determine whether a Gillette injury has occurred, the court looks at:

• The employee’s specific work activity.
• How that work activity affects the employee.
• The symptoms the employee experienced in doing the work over and over.
• The physician’s opinion as to whether the employee’s work activity was a substantial contributing factor to his or her injury.

Determining the date of injury

Even though a cumulative injury isn’t the result of a specific incident, determining a date of injury is still required. The date of injury is significant because it is typically the insurer covering the employer at the date of injury that is responsible for providing workers’ compensation benefits. The general rule holds that a Gillette injury has not occurred or “culminated” until the employee has either lost time from work, required a change of duties because of his or her physical condition or sought medical treatment. There are frequent exceptions to this rule depending on the facts of each individual case.

For more information on Gillette injuries, download the following SFM resources:

• Cumulative (Gillette) injuries Legal Advisory
• Repetitive stress injuries CompTalk and safety quiz
• Repetitive motion injuries – Office 5-minute solution

This is not intended to serve as legal advice for individual fact-specific legal cases or as a legal basis for your employment practices.

Remember when you were willing to work for little or no pay just to get some “real-world” experience in your chosen field?

If your organization helps students and recent graduates gain work experience by offering internships, be aware that even unpaid interns could be eligible for workers’ compensation benefits.

Paid interns are almost always covered by your workers’ compensation policy. Statutes and case law relating to unpaid interns vary by state.

A key issue in determining compensability is whether the student is under the control of the employer as far as work schedule and duties as well as the presence of room, board or other allowances. If so, that could give legal grounds to identify the unpaid intern as an employee.

Unpaid intern or volunteer?

Another issue is differentiating between an unpaid intern and a volunteer. While unpaid interns may be eligible for workers’ compensation benefits, volunteers generally aren’t. Interns are typically characterized as advanced students or recent graduates who are learning a professional field.

Some states get specific on interns who qualify for workers’ comp

Some state laws specifically list certain types of interns who are eligible for workers’ compensation.

For example, Minnesota law specifically states that, for purposes of workers’ compensation, student teachers are considered employees of the schools where they’re working. South Dakota law  stipulates that vocational program students working off school premises are considered school employees unless the offsite organization where they are working pays them or otherwise elects to cover them.

Contract between school and workplace key

When there’s a question whether an intern is eligible for workers’ comp, SFM’s attorneys often look to the contract between the intern’s school and the organization where the intern is working. In some cases, the contract explicitly states that the employer will provide workers’ compensation coverage. 

Related resource:

• Internship programs under the Fair Labor Standards Act

This fact sheet from the U.S. Department of Labor provides general information to determine whether interns must be paid minimum wage and overtime.

This is not intended to serve as legal advice for individual fact-specific legal cases or as a legal basis for your employment practices.

By Beth Giebel, Esq.

Employers can be surprised and frustrated to learn that an employee who is injured while violating company safety rules can still receive workers’ compensation benefits.

This isn’t always the case.

In these situations, it is possible to deny liability for an injury on the basis of the “prohibited act” defense, but the employee’s injury must occur as a direct result of a violation of a clearly stated, and consistently enforced, prohibited act, policy or rule.

A Minnesota case illustrates the applicability of this defense.

In Smith v Metro Transit , the employee, a bus driver, was driving his route when a passenger wanted to get off at a non-designated stop. The employee did not feel it was safe, so declined to stop. At the next designated stop, the passenger spat in the employee’s face as he exited the bus. The employee then got off the bus and chased after the passenger. When the employee caught up with the passenger, the passenger shoved the employee, causing him to fall and injure his shoulder.

Employee injured while violating policy

The employer, Metro Transit, had published a bus driver’s guide that established guidelines for bus drivers in terms of dealing with unruly passengers. Their bus drivers were instructed to “avoid physical confrontations wherever possible and were told to refrain from leaving the bus operator’s seat to settle disputes unless it was necessary to do so in self-defense.”

The employee had previously acknowledged these work rules and had been disciplined for violating them.

The compensation judge denied the employee’s claim and found that the injury occurred as a direct result of the employer’s prohibited act. The Minnesota Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of compensation, and reviewed the six factors to consider in determining whether the prohibited act defense would disallow the employee’s claim:

• Whether the employee knows of the prohibition;
• Whether the prohibition was customarily observed;
• Whether the employer took reasonable steps to enforce the prohibition;
• The reason for the prohibition;
• Whether the performance of the prohibited act was unreasonably dangerous; and
• Whether it was reasonably foreseeable by the employer that the expressly prohibited act would occur.

Violations of safety standards

Violations of standard safety procedures, such as failure to wear a hard hat or eye protection, do not typically bar compensation if an employee is injured while otherwise performing his or her authorized employment activity.

Failure to abide by safety policies and procedures may provide the basis for disciplinary action against the employee, but the presence or absence of safety equipment does not necessarily give rise to a prohibited act defense.

Depending on the laws in your state, failure to follow safety rules could result in decreased compensation.

For example, in Wisconsin, compensation is decreased by 15 percent  if an injury is caused by the employee’s failure to use a safety device, provided in accordance with a statute or with a Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development administrative rule, if the device is adequately maintained and its use is reasonably enforced. Compensation is also reduced if the injury is caused by the employee’s failure to obey a reasonable safety rule adopted and enforced by the employer where notice is given.

Create a ‘prohibited acts’ policy

Having policies that clearly articulate prohibited practices at the workplace can improve the safety and health of your employees, decrease costs and missed work days, help control your workers’ compensation premium and send a strong message that may warrant a denial of compensation for certain injuries.

But having a policy is just the first step. Be sure to:

• Clearly identify prohibited acts
• Communicate prohibitions to employees
• Consistently enforce policies
• Discipline violations of the policies

This will help make your policy as effective as possible in preventing injuries among your employees.

This is not intended to serve as legal advice for individual fact-specific legal cases or as a legal basis for your employment practices.

A workers’ compensation premium audit is a routine and regular process for every policy. In fact, SFM premium auditors complete more than 20,000 of them each year.

Here’s why premium audits are so important, and how to ensure yours goes smoothly, year after year.

Premium audit basics

The annual premium audit helps ensure you end up paying the right amount for your workers’ compensation coverage — not too little, or too much.

The premium you pay for your workers’ compensation coverage is initially an estimate, based on your expected payroll and job classifications. Once the policy period has ended, we audit your actual payroll and classifications to determine your final premium. As a result, you might receive a bill or reimbursement to make up the difference between the estimate and the final audited premium amount.

Depending on your organization’s characteristics, an auditor might visit to complete the premium audit, or you may be able to complete the premium audit online.

The records you’ll want to have on hand for your premium audit include:

• Your payroll register or journal for the dates your policy is in effect
• Your quarterly tax reports, including Form 941 and state unemployment forms
• Departmental labor distribution report for larger employers (this is the money paid to laborers not included in your payroll records)

Certain types of companies may have additional record requirements.

We’ve worked to make the premium audit process as simple as possible. In fact, in recent surveys, 92% of policyholders who had an onsite premium audit rated the experience a 4 out of 5 or higher. Sixty-six percent rated the premium audit experience a 5 out of 5.

Hear more premium audit basics in this short video featuring our Premium Audit Team Leader Ken Johnson: 

Subcontractors and your premium

Classifying subcontractors when it comes to workers’ compensation can be confusing.

Workers’ compensation regulations set by your state may define employees and independent contractors differently than the IRS or your state unemployment insurance department. Don’t assume that someone considered an independent contractor for tax purposes is automatically considered one for workers’ compensation purposes.

That’s why our premium auditors examine payments made to people performing labor outside of your payroll. Whenever you’re paying people for labor but they are not included in your workers’ compensation premium, our auditors need to verify that they meet the criteria as independent contractors as defined by your state’s laws.

If you need help determining whether a subcontractor is an independent contractor or employee, don’t hesitate to ask your agent for help. See our post “Are your workers independent contractors or employees?” for more details.

Tips to avoid premium audit surprises

Because your workers’ compensation premium is initially an estimate, based on your expected payroll and job classifications, your audit results may surprise you if your actual payroll and classifications change significantly over the year.

Here are some tips to avoid unwanted surprises in your premium audit:

• Update your agent if your operations change significantly. For example, your payroll may increase or decrease. Informing your agent of changes can help reduce the chances of large premium differences when the audit is completed.
• When you hire subcontractors in specific states, you may be liable for their coverage, resulting in additional premium being due.
• Get a certificate of workers’ compensation insurance from each subcontractor you use. In addition, each state has guidelines or laws in place to determine who qualifies as an employee versus an independent contractor, and it helps to be aware of the rules in your state.

Complete audits on time to avoid an extra charge

When you receive the auditor’s request to schedule your premium audit, don’t delay in starting the process.

Premium audit noncompliance could result in policy cancellation or a hefty charge of up to 200 percent of your estimated annual premium.

The premium audit noncompliance charge is a National Council on Compensation Insurance rule that has been in place on every policy since January 1, 2017. The Minnesota Workers’ Compensation Insurers Association and the Wisconsin Compensation Rating Bureau also adopted the rule.

Please respond to our attempts to complete the premium audit as soon as you can. If you have questions about the premium audit process, we’re here to help! Call your assigned premium auditor or our Premium Audit team at (800) 937-1181. 

Special events such as parties, team-building activities or sporting events can help build relationships and make the workplace more fun.

But what happens if someone is injured at the holiday party or while participating in a team-building outing? Would they receive workers’ compensation benefits?

There’s no clear-cut answer, and case law differs somewhat by state.

Typically, an injury sustained in an activity that is truly voluntary is not compensable. But if the employee is encouraged or required to participate, or the company benefits from the participation in some way, it could be.

If the activity takes place on your premises, during work hours, or both, these factors could make an injury at the event more likely to be compensable.

Legal guidance by state

In some states, established case law provides some guidance on whether injuries at special work events are compensable.

Minnesota

The Minnesota Supreme Court addressed this issue in 2016, ruling that the activity must be voluntary for the employer not to be liable. The activity is not considered voluntary if this hasn’t been clearly communicated to the employee, and if there are any negative consequences for not participating. For example, if the employee had to take vacation time or would be viewed negatively from a job performance standpoint for not participating, these would be considered negative consequences and the activity wouldn’t be considered voluntary.

Iowa

In Iowa, the court looks at whether the employer received a “substantial direct benefit” from the employee’s participation to determine whether an injury was work-related. A large factor in compensability is determining whether the employee was required or expected to participate. Even if an event was technically voluntary, if it was held during working hours on the employer’s premises and participation was encouraged, it could be compensable.

Wisconsin

In Wisconsin, injuries at special events are compensable when one of the following is met:

• The activity is on the employer’s premise
• The employer expressly or implicitly requires participation
• The employer receives substantial and direct benefit from the activity beyond improvement in employee health and morale

South Dakota and Nebraska

South Dakota and Nebraska don’t have any specific laws or guidelines in place, but considerations about whether an activity was truly voluntary would likely come into play in these states as well.

No matter which state you’re in, it’s worth spending some time thinking through any special events that you’re planning. Ask yourself about the safety risks, and whether your employees will feel it’s voluntary. This can help you make better decisions about the types of special events you offer, and how you communicate about them. 

Prepared by attorneys at SFM’s in-house law firm

This is not intended to serve as legal advice for individual fact-specific legal cases or as a legal basis for your employment practices.

Have you ever thought about what happens if an employee is injured while taking a coffee break or walking to the restroom?

Courts in most states have ruled that employees who are injured while taking short breaks from work to seek personal comfort can be eligible for workers’ compensation benefits.

This raises the question: What happens when that injury occurs while the employee is working from home?

With more people telecommuting , it’s an issue of growing concern for employers.

That coffee break may be compensable

In a December 2008 case, the Minnesota Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals confirmed extension of the personal comfort doctrine  to employees working from a home office. The personal comfort doctrine states that an employee can be entitled to benefits for an injury that occurs during work hours, but while the employee is taking care of personal needs.

In the case (Munson v. Wilmar/Interline Brands ) the court awarded benefits to an employee who was injured when descending the stairs to get a cup of coffee while working from his home office.

The employer in the case required the employee to maintain a home office as part of his job as a sales representative. On a Saturday morning, the employee was planning to prepare a month-end sales report. He dialed into the company’s server and prepared the report, but had some technical difficulty sharing the report. The employee decided to take a break, and went downstairs to the kitchen to get a cup of coffee. As he went down the stairs, he slipped and fell on his back, fracturing his T9 vertebrae and requiring surgery. The employer and insurer denied the claim, and denied that the personal comfort doctrine applied to a home office setting.

While the court recognized that determining liability for injuries occurring in home office settings may be difficult, the court examined the specific circumstances of the case presented, and found the injury compensable through application of the personal comfort doctrine. The court noted that the employee was working shortly before he took his break, was performing duties required by the employer, and did not engage in any unreasonably dangerous or risky behavior when he went to get his coffee. The court found it no different than an employee working at the employer’s main facility who takes a coffee break and walks to the break room, sustaining an injury in the process.

The personal comfort doctrine in other states

Case law in most states reflects recognition of the personal comfort doctrine or some similar principle, generally allowing workers to be compensated for injuries that occur on short comfort-related breaks from work. Whether the personal comfort doctrine applies to telecommuters hasn’t yet been tested in all courts. If an employee is injured while taking a brief break during the workday to grab a snack, go to the bathroom, get a cup of coffee, or similar personal convenience tasks — whether at an employer’s corporate office or at the employee’s home office — a court is likely to find the employee eligible for workers’ compensation. These types of cases will be very fact-dependent to determine whether the worker has deviated from his or her employment activities at the time of the injury.

Confirm that telecommuters have a safe working environment

Presumably, injuries suffered while home office employees take breaks to do housework, provide care to children, etc., will not be found compensable. Courts will examine whether the injury arose out of and occurred in the course of employment activities, or instead occurred while performing activities normally performed as a homeowner or household resident.

Because there will not typically be any witnesses to the accident other than the employee, it is paramount that employers allow only the employees whom they trust to work in any unsupervised setting, including a home office. Employers should clearly define any expectations or policies governing the terms and conditions of telecommuting work activities and environments. When accidents do occur, employers should promptly make a detailed investigation of exactly when the accident occurred, what the employee was doing at the time of the injury (as well as before and after the injury), and how the accident happened. 

Additionally, while employers cannot completely eliminate safety hazards in a home office setting, just as they cannot in the traditional employment setting, employers should enforce good risk management practices to ensure that home office workplaces are as safe as possible.

Planning for safe remote work

You can prepare for the safety of your remote workers by creating or reviewing your policies and procedures for remote work:

• Develop a remote work policy that covers eligibility, safety, equipment and security
• Have the employee sign a remote work agreement, acknowledging their responsibilities
• Create a safety checklist or assessment for remote workspaces
• Require a dedicated workstation in their home
• Consider equipment and security needs
• Provide safety training and resources
• Follow up on a regular basis to ensure safety procedures are being followed

Safety concerns in home offices

As an employer, you can monitor and enforce safety practices at your central office. It becomes more challenging when you don’t control your worker’s environment.

Do all you can to ensure that employees’ working spaces meet minimum criteria for safety. Workers may be more complacent in their own homes, and disregard tripping hazards or poor ergonomics.

A dedicated home workstation is beneficial because, unlike lounging on the couch with a laptop, the workstation can be set up for proper ergonomics. An optimal setup includes:

• An appropriate chair and desk
• The computer, keyboard and mouse in the correct positions
• A telephone, possibly with a headset
• Proper lighting to reduce eye strain
• Adequate, accessible storage to eliminate tripping and lifting dangers
• Awareness about electrical and fire hazards

Frequent travel introduces additional risks, such as those associated with driving and outdoor slips and falls. The employee must remain vigilant about the risks that go along with traveling from location to location.

No matter where your employee is located — whether it’s their home, a coffee shop or a co-working space — be sure they recognize the importance of safety.

This is not intended to serve as legal advice for individual fact-specific legal cases or as a legal basis for your employment practices.