Case Update: Going and Coming Rule


In Calvo v. Montgomery County, the Claimant, Calvo, was a bus driver with twenty years' experience working with Montgomery County. She regularly was scheduled to work Monday through Friday at the Silver Spring Depot. In May 2015, she received a letter stating that she was scheduled to attend an important mandatory annual training on a Saturday (her normal day off) that month that would take place from 8:00am to 4:30pm at the Gaithersburg Depot (not her normal worksite). While on her way to the training, Calvo was rear-ended by another car while waiting at a traffic light and sustained injuries.

Calvo filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits and after a hearing, the Workers' Compensation Commission found that her injuries were compensable. Montgomery County appealed in the Circuit Court, which subsequently granted summary judgment in its favor, finding that Calvo was not a traveling employee and that the special mission exception to the going and coming rule did not apply. On appeal, the Court of Special appeals affirmed that Calvo's claim was barred by the going and coming rule.

Before the Court of Appeals, the parties disagreed as to whether the issue was one to be resolved by a trier of fact or a legal one which may be appropriately decided by a judge. The Court of Appeals found that Calvo was not a traveling employee, given the nature of the training and the distance from her regular work site. When the Court considered the special errand exception, it found that a jury could have found in Calvo's favor. While the Court of Appeals did not make a compensability determination, it agreed with Calvo that because the trip was mandatory, could be found to be irregular or unusual because it was on her day off at a different location than she normally reported to, and potentially onerous because it was on her normal day off, a reasonable jury could have found in her favor under the facts, thus, making summary judgment inappropriate.

The case was remanded for trial to resolve the issue of compensability under Maryland workers' compensation law.

A copy of the Opinion can be found at: