## Facts

- Gregory Kolomiets worked part-time for Syncor International Corporation as a delivery driver transporting regulated radioactive products from Stamford, Connecticut, to hospitals.
- Syncor provided “recommended” transportation routes, but drivers could change routes if necessary.
- On February 10, 1993, Kolomiets used a company vehicle to complete assigned deliveries to Lawrence Hospital in Bronxville, New York.
- After finishing deliveries and returning toward Connecticut on I-95, Kolomiets realized he had left his wallet and driver’s license at home.
- Kolomiets passed the usual exit to return to Syncor’s facility (exit 6) and took the next exit (exit 7) intending to go home to retrieve the items, stating he did not know whether additional deliveries would be assigned.
- Before reaching home, Kolomiets was injured in a motor vehicle accident.
- A supervisor testified Syncor would have preferred Kolomiets return to the facility and punch out, and that there were no additional deliveries that day.

## Issues

1. Whether injuries from an accident occurring after an employee drove past the usual exit to the employer’s facility and took the next exit to head toward home to retrieve a wallet and driver’s license “arose out of and in the course of employment” under the Connecticut Workers’ Compensation Act.
2. Whether the Workers’ Compensation Review Board exceeded its authority by recharacterizing the commissioner’s fact finding of a “minor deviation” as a “separate side trip.”

## Decision

- The Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed the Appellate Court and reinstated the commissioner’s award of benefits.
- The Court held the commissioner could reasonably find Kolomiets’ conduct was a minor deviation that did not amount to abandonment of employment.
- The Court concluded the Review Board improperly substituted its own factual characterization for the commissioner’s supported findings.

## Legal Principles

- A workers’ compensation claim requires that the injury “arise out of” and occur “in the course of” employment; course of employment includes acts reasonably incidental to the employment.
- An employee does not lose coverage for every deviation; compensation is barred only when the deviation is so substantial that the employee abandons employment or undertakes a separate personal enterprise.
- Whether the employee’s activity at the time of injury falls within the course of employment is primarily a question of fact for the compensation commissioner.
- Reviewing bodies must defer to the commissioner’s factual determinations when supported by evidence and reached under the correct legal standard; they may not reweigh evidence or replace the commissioner’s characterization of the deviation.

## Conclusion

The court upheld workers’ compensation benefits because the commissioner permissibly found that driving one exit beyond the usual return route while still on the work journey in the employer’s vehicle was a minor deviation, and the Review Board lacked authority to overturn that finding by re-labeling it as a separate personal trip.


Kolomiets v. Syncor Int’l Corp., 252 Conn. 261, 746 A.2d 743 (Conn. 2000)