Florida Statutes

Fla. Stat. § 440.092 (2025)

Special requirements for compensability; deviation from employment; subsequent intervening accidents.

✓ 2025 Florida Statutes — current through the 2025 Regular Session

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us JustiaFla. Statutes CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

440.092 Special requirements for compensability; deviation from employment; subsequent intervening accidents.—

(1) RECREATIONAL AND SOCIAL ACTIVITIES.—Recreational or social activities are not compensable unless such recreational or social activities are an expressly required incident of employment and produce a substantial direct benefit to the employer beyond improvement in employee health and morale that is common to all kinds of recreation and social life.

(2) GOING OR COMING.—An injury suffered while going to or coming from work is not an injury arising out of and in the course of employment whether or not the employer provided transportation if such means of transportation was available for the exclusive personal use by the employee, unless the employee was engaged in a special errand or mission for the employer. For the purposes of this subsection and not withstanding any other provisions of law to the contrary, an injury to a law enforcement officer as defined in s. 943.10(1), during the officer’s work period or while going to or coming from work in an official law enforcement vehicle, shall be presumed to be an injury arising out of and in the course of employment unless the injury occurred during a distinct deviation for a nonessential personal errand. If, however, the employer’s policy or the collective bargaining agreement that applies to the officer permits such deviations for nonessential errands, the injury shall be presumed to arise out of and in the course of employment.

(3) DEVIATION FROM EMPLOYMENT.—An employee who is injured while deviating from the course of employment, including leaving the employer’s premises, is not eligible for benefits unless such deviation is expressly approved by the employer, or unless such deviation or act is in response to an emergency and designed to save life or property.

(4) TRAVELING EMPLOYEES.—An employee who is required to travel in connection with his or her employment who suffers an injury while in travel status shall be eligible for benefits under this chapter only if the injury arises out of and in the course of employment while he or she is actively engaged in the duties of employment. This subsection applies to travel necessarily incident to performance of the employee’s job responsibility but does not include travel to and from work as provided in subsection (2).

(5) SUBSEQUENT INTERVENING ACCIDENTS.—Injuries caused by a subsequent intervening accident arising from an outside agency which are the direct and natural consequence of the original injury are not compensable unless suffered while traveling to or from a health care provider for the purpose of receiving remedial treatment for the compensable injury.

History.—s. 14, ch. 90-201; s. 10, ch. 91-1; s. 6, ch. 93-415; s. 103, ch. 97-103; s. 1, ch. 2001-168.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 48 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1990–2024 · leading case: Swartz v. McDonald's Corp., 788 So. 2d 937 (Fla. 2001).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Swartz v. McDonald's Corp., 788 So. 2d 937 (Fla. 2001). · cites it 18× “Despite the broad application of the "going and coming" rule, section 440.092 delineates several exceptions.”

Am. Airlines v. LeFevers, 674 So. 2d 940 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). · cites it 17× “The JCC determined that the claimant's accident was compensable under section 440.092(4), Florida Statutes (Supp.”

IMC Phosphates Co. v. Prater, 895 So. 2d 1263 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). · cites it 9× “The employer/carrier (E/C) appeal a final order of the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) finding compensable, pursuant to section 440.092(5), Florida Statutes (2001), the injuries suffered by claimant Lonnie Prater (Appellee) on August 20, 2002; and granting the request for…”

Bunnam v. Olsten Quality Care, 667 So. 2d 948 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). · cites it 29× “Elizabeth Dunnam (“Dunnam”) appeals a workers’ compensation order denying com-pensability based upon application of the “going or coming” rule contained in section 440.092(2), Florida Statutes (1993).”

Shuler v. Gregory Elec., 622 S.E.2d 569 (S.C. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “See Fla. Stat. § 440.092 (5) ("Injuries caused by a subsequent intervening accident arising from an outside agency which are the direct and natural consequence of the original injury are not compensable unless suffered while traveling to or from a health care provider for the…”

Wilcox v. Ag Mart Produce, 942 So. 2d 959 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006). · cites it 10× “After a hearing, the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) denied benefits to claimant based on the going and coming rule, section 440.092(2), Florida Statutes (2005).”

Swartz v. McDonald's Corp., 726 So. 2d 783 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). · cites it 8× “In this worker's compensation appeal, Tessann Swartz, the claimant below and a former human resources trainee for appellee, McDonald's Corporation (the employer), appeals an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) denying compensability of her petition for benefits on…”

Highlands Cnty. Sch. Bd. v. Savage, 609 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). · cites it 8× “The E/C assert that the JCC erred in finding that claimant's injury while participating in a basketball game was a result of an incident of her employment and, therefore, compensable pursuant to section 440.092(1), Florida Statutes (Supp.”

Sentry Ins. Co. v. Hamlin, 69 So. 3d 1065 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011). · cites it 5× “• Fourth, his injury is compensable because retrieval of his schoolbooks was an emergency and injuries sustained as a result of an emergency designed to save property are compensable under section 440.092(3), Florida Statutes (2008).”

Evans v. Handi-man Temp. Servs. & Riscorp, 710 So. 2d 132 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). · cites it 8× “The going and coming rule, codified in section 440.092(2) Florida Statutes (1995), does not apply in the present case because Mr.”

Bayfront Med. Ctr. v. Harding, 653 So. 2d 1140 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). · cites it 5× “The E/SA defended on the basis of section 440.092(3), Florida Statutes (1991), asserting that the accident occurred dining a deviation from Claimant’s employment, and was therefore not compensable.”

Securex, Inc. v. Couto, 627 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). · cites it 3× “092(2) has abrogated the exception to the going and coming rule for employer-provided transportation. The law provides that: An injury suffered while going to or coming from work is not an injury arising out of and in the course of employment whether or not the employer provided…”

Show all 48 citing cases →

— 440.092(1) — 4 cases

Highlands Cnty. Sch. Bd. v. Savage, 609 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). “The E/C assert that the JCC erred in finding that claimant's injury while participating in a basketball game was a result of an incident of her employment and, therefore, compensable pursuant to section 440.092(1), Florida Statutes (Supp.”

Whitehead v. Orange Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't, 909 So. 2d 344 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005).

City of Miami v. Gutierrez, 979 So. 2d 1028 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008).

Madden v. Walt Disney World Co., 711 So. 2d 150 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998).

— 440.092(2) — 26 cases

Swartz v. McDonald's Corp., 788 So. 2d 937 (Fla. 2001). “Despite the broad application of the "going and coming" rule, section 440.092 delineates several exceptions.”

Swartz v. McDonald's Corp., 726 So. 2d 783 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). “In this worker's compensation appeal, Tessann Swartz, the claimant below and a former human resources trainee for appellee, McDonald's Corporation (the employer), appeals an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) denying compensability of her petition for benefits on…”

Securex, Inc. v. Couto, 627 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). “092(2) has abrogated the exception to the going and coming rule for employer-provided transportation. The law provides that: An injury suffered while going to or coming from work is not an injury arising out of and in the course of employment whether or not the employer provided…”

Gilbert v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., 790 So. 2d 1057 (Fla. 2001).

Wilcox v. Ag Mart Produce, 942 So. 2d 959 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006). “After a hearing, the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) denied benefits to claimant based on the going and coming rule, section 440.092(2), Florida Statutes (2005).”

— 440.092(3) — 9 cases

Sentry Ins. Co. v. Hamlin, 69 So. 3d 1065 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011). “• Fourth, his injury is compensable because retrieval of his schoolbooks was an emergency and injuries sustained as a result of an emergency designed to save property are compensable under section 440.092(3), Florida Statutes (2008).”

Bayfront Med. Ctr. v. Harding, 653 So. 2d 1140 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). “The E/SA defended on the basis of section 440.092(3), Florida Statutes (1991), asserting that the accident occurred dining a deviation from Claimant’s employment, and was therefore not compensable.”

Dunlevy v. Seminole Cnty. Dep't of Pub. Saf., 792 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001).

Jean Fluet, Inc. v. Harrison, 652 So. 2d 1209 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995).

Rodriguez v. Tri-State Carriers, Inc., 792 So. 2d 1253 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001).

— 440.092(4) — 12 cases

Am. Airlines v. LeFevers, 674 So. 2d 940 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). “The JCC determined that the claimant's accident was compensable under section 440.092(4), Florida Statutes (Supp.”

Swartz v. McDonald's Corp., 788 So. 2d 937 (Fla. 2001). “Despite the broad application of the "going and coming" rule, section 440.092 delineates several exceptions.”

Bunnam v. Olsten Quality Care, 667 So. 2d 948 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). “Elizabeth Dunnam (“Dunnam”) appeals a workers’ compensation order denying com-pensability based upon application of the “going or coming” rule contained in section 440.092(2), Florida Statutes (1993).”

Evans v. Handi-man Temp. Servs. & Riscorp, 710 So. 2d 132 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). “The going and coming rule, codified in section 440.092(2) Florida Statutes (1995), does not apply in the present case because Mr.”

— 440.092(5) — 3 cases

IMC Phosphates Co. v. Prater, 895 So. 2d 1263 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). “The employer/carrier (E/C) appeal a final order of the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) finding compensable, pursuant to section 440.092(5), Florida Statutes (2001), the injuries suffered by claimant Lonnie Prater (Appellee) on August 20, 2002; and granting the request for…”

Jermaine Davis v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sheriff's Off./USIS, 196 So. 3d 543 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016).

U-Haul of South Florida v. March, 645 So. 2d 581 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.