Call For A Free Consultation
(386) 229-3722No Recovery, No Fee
Remote work has become a lasting part of the modern workforce, and with that shift comes new questions about legal protections when injuries happen at home.
In this article, we explore how Florida workers’ compensation laws apply to remote and hybrid employees, what qualifies as a work-related injury, and where gray areas can arise. Drawing from real-world examples and current legal principles, we aim to shed light on how courts view remote work injuries in Florida and what injured workers should know about their rights and options.
Remote work does not really change the analysis of what workers’ compensation benefits may be available to an injured worker, as long as the injury arises out of and is related to the work.
A relatively recent case involved an insurance adjuster who typically worked from home. Her work agreement required her to perform her job duties in a specific part of her house. While taking a coffee break, which everyone agreed would normally be compensable, she tripped over her dog. The court ultimately found that the dog was an intervening cause unrelated to her work and, therefore, denied the claim.
Burning yourself while pouring a cup of coffee is something that could happen in a traditional workplace, for example. Tripping over a dog, however, is not something that would normally occur if you were working at the office. So, while there are exceptions, the general rule is that unless there is an intervening cause unrelated to work, remote workers are still entitled to the same benefits under the law.
There is really no reason the analysis should be different based on whether you are working under your employer’s roof or your own. If someone develops carpal tunnel syndrome from repetitive typing, it does not matter whether that typing occurs at home while doing work, at a pool deck while doing work, or in a conference room at the employer’s office. The key factor is that the activity causing the injury is related to the job.
In most instances, I think employers effectively bear that risk, because no place is ever entirely safe or free from danger. An inadvertent and unexpected stumble on a stair is something that could happen anywhere.
Despite this, I could see a court drawing a distinction between a simple, unexpected stumble and a more unusual scenario, such as a catastrophic plumbing failure that causes water to flood an area of the home. If an employee slips on a linoleum floor because of a mechanical crisis in the house, the question becomes whether that is more analogous to tripping over a dog, which is unrelated to work, or just one of the inherent risks of working in a structure.
Those are the nuances where gray areas exist, and sometimes no one can predict with absolute certainty how a court will rule. By contrast, a much clearer example would be an employer having a box of documents delivered to a worker’s home, and the worker injuring their back while lifting it. That would very clearly fall on the compensable side. The dog is probably not compensable, a plumbing leak may fall somewhere in between, and sometimes it may depend on the judge and the circumstances of the day.
In most instances, yes, barring the employee doing something substantially atypical. The current state of the law suggests that employers bear that risk. If they want to mitigate it, nothing prevents them from placing restrictions or conditions on workspaces.
For example, an employer could provide a V-shaped ergonomic keyboard that reduces hand strain. There is nothing that prevents that keyboard from being placed in an office next door to the boss’s office or shipped directly to the employee’s home.
If an employer is genuinely concerned about ergonomic injuries, they have both the ability and, arguably, the duty to intervene proactively. If they fail to do so, they may have a difficult time later raising that issue as a defense.
The general rule in Florida is that traveling between a person’s home and a physical workspace is typically not compensable. However, there are exceptions, including what is known as the traveling employee rule.
I once represented a man whose job involved almost exclusively traveling between road maintenance projects. He oversaw safety control devices such as cone placement, blinking signs, and directional arrows. His workday commonly began at home, where he would get into his work truck and travel to various sites, rarely going to the employer’s physical office.
In his case, he was injured in a motor vehicle accident while returning home from his last site of the day. His intention was to continue working from home on his company-issued computer to complete reports and submit data. We were able to show clear documentation that he regularly performed that desk work from home after fieldwork.
The employer raised a going-and-coming defense, arguing that his workday ended when he left the final site. However, because we demonstrated that he routinely continued working once he got home, the court found that he was still in the course of his employment, and the claim was deemed compensable.
First and foremost, it is always important for the employee to report the injury to the employer. After that, even while awaiting a response, it never hurts to have too much information too soon.
I provide complimentary consultations and guidance to help people understand what typically should and should not happen in a claim. Many people do not know how to assess whether what they are experiencing is normal or whether something is incorrect or atypical.
While it is not always necessary to retain an attorney early in a claim, it can be helpful to become educated about what to expect and what warning signs might justify revisiting the issue with a lawyer.
For more information on remote work injuries in Florida, an initial consultation is your next best step. Get the information and legal answers you are seeking by calling (386) 229-3722 today.