Technological innovation is revolutionizing our modern work environment. Cell-phones have given employees the ability to work from anywhere in the world while simultaneously running errands. But what happens if you are injured at your home while checking a work email? How wide is the scope of compensability?

In Schwan Food Co. v. Frederick, the Court of Special Appeals held that injuries sustained at a home worksite can now be compensable.[1] In this case, Ryan Frederick (“Ryan”), worked as a customer service representative for Schwan Food Company. [2] Ryan’s job involved traveling to various grocery stores and running deliveries for each of his accounts.[3] On the morning of January 28, 2016,  Ryan downloaded his work-route for the day on his employer-provided computer. [4] His plan was to drop off his son at daycare on the way to his first work account. Unfortunately-before leaving-he slipped on ice in front of his home and injured his leg. [5]

Although this case is ultimately remanded because material facts remain in dispute, the court concluded that an employee’s home can now qualify as a worksite if it complies with a three-pronged test. [6] The test requires the jury to weigh (1) the quantity and regularity of work carried out at home; (2) the presence of work-related equipment at home; and (3) the special circumstances of the employment that render working from home necessary. [7] The jury should also consider whether the employer knew or should have known that the employee was routinely using the home as a work-site. [8]

So what kind of implications will this have on Maryland employees and employers? For employees, there is a new avenue for compensability. For example, one could imagine a scenario where an employee is responding to work emails on his/her phone and falls going down the stairs. If that injury occurs at a home worksite, in the course of employment, it may now be compensable. On the other hand, there is an increased burden for the employer. The employer may now be responsible for compensating injuries that occur in an employee’s home-a place outside of the employer’s control.

Nevertheless, the door is not wide-open for employees. Employees who are working from home for their own convenience rather than necessity will not be covered by Workers’ Compensation.[9]  As follows, whether the effect of this decision is considerable or trivial will fall heavily on the lower courts’s interpretation of the three-pronged test.

Isabel Jorrin Garcia is a 2L at the University of Baltimore School of Law. She is a staff editor for the UB Law Forum, President of the Latin American Law Student Association, and law clerk at Franklin & Prokopik, PC. Her legal interests include commercial and civil litigation.

[1] Schwan Food Co. v. Frederick, 241 Md.App. 628, 638 (2019).

[2] Schwan Food Co., 241 Md.App. at 637.

[3] Id.

[4] Id.

[5] Id.

[6] Id. at 662.

[7] Id.

[8] Id.

[9] Id.