This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
Two oilfield workers were killed, and two others were injured in a vehicle accident while commuting home from a drilling rig. The workers were not required to travel together, used their own vehicles, and were not compensated for travel time or mileage. The employer did not provide transportation or impose requirements on how employees commuted (paras 2-4).
Procedural History
- Workers’ Compensation Administration, Gregory Griego, Workers’ Compensation Judge: Dismissed the claims of the injured and deceased workers, finding that the injuries did not arise out of or occur in the course of employment and were barred by the going and coming rule (paras 5-6).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellants: Argued that the traveling employee exception to the going and coming rule applied, as their travel was integral to their employment and necessitated by the remote worksite (paras 5, 8, 13).
- Appellees (Employer/Insurer): Contended that the going and coming rule precluded compensation, as the workers were commuting home after work, and their travel was not required or controlled by the employer (paras 5, 24).
Legal Issues
- Does the going and coming rule preclude workers’ compensation for injuries sustained while commuting home from work?
- Does the traveling employee exception apply to the workers in this case?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the Workers’ Compensation Judge’s decision, holding that the going and coming rule applied and the traveling employee exception did not (para 32).
Reasons
Per Roderick T. Kennedy J. (Cynthia A. Fry and Michael E. Vigil JJ. concurring):
The Court found that the going and coming rule, codified in Section 52-1-19 of the Workers’ Compensation Act, generally excludes injuries sustained while commuting to or from work from compensation unless specific exceptions apply. The traveling employee exception applies only when travel is an integral part of the job, such as when employees are required to travel between work sites or stay away from home for work purposes (paras 9-12, 15-17).
The Court determined that the workers were not traveling employees because: Their job duties did not require travel beyond commuting to a fixed worksite (paras 22-23, 27). The employer did not provide or control transportation, nor did it require employees to travel together (paras 24, 30). The workers were commuting home after their workday, and their travel was not integral to their job duties (paras 26-27).
The Court distinguished this case from others where the traveling employee exception applied, noting that the workers were not exposed to risks beyond those faced by ordinary commuters. The evidence supported the Workers’ Compensation Judge’s findings that the injuries did not arise out of or occur in the course of employment (paras 21, 31).