Commute or special errand? The Minnesota Supreme Court weighs in—and the answer has important implications for hybrid work and compensability.
Read our full breakdown below to see how this decision may impact claims handling moving forward. 👇
The Ludwig v. Dakota County decision addresses the application of the “special errand” exception to the coming-and-going rule in the context of hybrid work.
The employee was instructed to return to in-person work after a period of working from home. On the morning she was to report to the office, she began to load her work equipment into her vehicle. While doing so, she fell and injured her back. The employer denied the claim under the coming-and-going rule. The compensation judge agreed, finding that returning equipment to the workplace was incidental to the employee’s normal commute and did not qualify as a special errand.
The WCCA reversed this decision. It first added the express finding that the County’s return to office directive required Ludwig to return her equipment to the office before her regular shift. This requirement changed Ludwig’s activities on the morning of her injury from a simple act of commuting to a special errand. The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the WCCA did not err in drawing this inference and that the injury was compensable under the special errand exception.
A concurring opinion also highlighted the increasing complexity of applying traditional doctrines like the special errand rule in modern hybrid work environments.
Final Takeaway: The decision signals a broader application of the special errand exception where employer directives—express or implied—extend beyond a routine commute, particularly in hybrid work settings.
