Intoxicated landscaper not entitled to comp from car accident

A landscaper who was intoxicated when he rear-ended another car in a company vehicle is not entitled to workers compensation benefits, an appellate court held Monday.

In Gomez v. Department of Labor and Industries, the Washington Court of Appeals, Division One, in Seattle unanimously affirmed a jury’s decision that the worker was intoxicated to the extent that he abandoned his employment and was not eligible for workers comp.

Oscar Gomez worked as a foreman for Rich Landscaping Nursery, and was responsible for loading trucks, driving his crew to the worksite and assisting with landscaping-related tasks. On Dec. 21, 2015, he consumed alcohol on his lunch break and was subsequently involved in a car accident when he rear-ended another vehicle driving the nursery’s truck back to the office. The route was not approved by the company, and another motorist reported that the vehicle Mr. Gomez was driving was weaving in and out of traffic.

His blood alcohol concentration taken via breathalyzer after the accident measured 0.192 and 0.186 in two tests.

Mr. Gomez filed a claim for workers compensation benefits with the Washington Department of Labor & Industries. The department denied his claim, concluding that he was not in the course of employment at the time of his injury, and the Industrial Insurance Appeals Board denied his subsequent petition for review.

He appealed to the King County Superior Court in Seattle, and a jury held that Mr. Gomez was intoxicated to such an extent that he abandoned his employment and, as a result, was ineligible for workers compensation benefits.

He appealed, arguing that the court erred by refusing his proposed jury instructions, including his directive that the department bore the burden to prove he was not acting in the course of his employment when he was injured and that the board allows for compensation regardless of consideration of fault.

The court held that Mr. Gomez’s arguments lacked merit, finding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Mr. Gomez’s instruction requests could have misled the jury and he was able to argue his case without it.