CASE NO. 1082 CRD-7-90-7Workers’ Compensation Commission
OCTOBER 21, 1991
The claimant was represented by Elizabeth George, Esq., Ellen Effron, Esq., Arnold H. Rutkin, Esq., Rutkin Effron, P.C.
The respondents were represented by Jeffrey Schwartz, Esq., Montstream May.
This Petition for Review from the July 23, 1990 Finding and Dismissal of the Commissioner for the Seventh District was heard February 22, 1991 before a Compensation Review Division panel consisting of the Commission Chairman, John Arcudi, and Commissioners Frank Verrilli and Donald Doyle.
OPINION
JOHN ARCUDI, CHAIRMAN.
All parties have appealed the Seventh District’s July 23, 1990 ruling. Claimant was employed in the employer respondent’s painting contracting business. As part of that employment he was required to work at various job sites. In compliance with the collective bargaining agreement between the employer and the employees’ labor union, Painters Local Union 491 of Hartford, Connecticut, the employer paid claimant a travel allowance of $5.00 per each day worked. This allowance was paid regardless of the location of the work site or the method of transportation used.
On June 22, 1989 claimant, as he had done on six previous days, drove his motorcycle from his home to the job site, the Beral Corporation, at the Ridgebury Office Center, 44 Old Ridgebury road, Danbury, Connecticut. Claimant lived in Danbury: the employer’s location is in Plantsville, Connecticut. He parked his cycle in the privately owned parking lot adjacent to the Office Center building and proceeded to work. After completing work circa 2:10 p.m. he mounted his motorcycle and drove it approximately 250 feet within the parking lot enroute to an exit driveway. At that point he applied his brakes and was caused to be thrown from the cycle receiving an injury to his left wrist.
Claimant argues that the commissioner should have found that the parking lot injury arose in and out of the employment, because (1) the employer provided claimant with a $5.00 per day travel allowance, and (2) the accident occurred in the parking lot of a job site. The respondent objects to the corrections in the Finding granted by the commissioner.
First, claimant’s contention is that since the employer furnished a travel allowance, all travel to and from work arises in and out of the employment. We think Orsinie v. Torrance, 96 Conn. 352 (1921) is controlling. Orsinie distinguished Swanson v. Latham, 92 Conn. 87 (1917) and held that where the transportation allowance became part of wages and was paid regardless of what manner of transportation was chosen and even if none was used, then travel to and from work was not covered.
Claimants’ second contention, the occurrence of the injury in the parking lot of a job site, presents a different legal concept. He is attempting to analogize his situation to that presented in Chavarriaga v. Pathmark, 5 Conn. Workers Comp. Rev. Op. 16, 363 CRD-7-84 (1988). Chavarriaga was an employee of the Pathmark store. That store was located in a shopping mall. The employee had parked in the mall garage as directed by his employer. The commissioner had found that the injury occurred in a “portion of the Common Area leased by the respondent-employer” and therefore that area should “be considered as part of the employer’s premises.”
In the instant case, the parking area was not found to be part of the premises of the painting contractor employer. The commissioner found that no parking was permitted on the public streets adjacent to the Ridgebury Office Center and therefore the employee parked inside the Office Center’s premises. The situation is thus similar to what it would have been had the employee parked on the street. We cannot therefore disagree with the Seventh District’s holding that the Office Center lot was not an extension of the employer painter contractor’s premises.
As we affirm the Seventh District’s Finding and Dismissal of claimant’s claim, we do not need to consider Respondents’ appeal. The claimant’s appeal is dismissed.
Commissioners Frank Verrilli and Donald Doyle concur.