Employment: Course and Scope: Generally

MONTANA SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
Van Vleet v. Montana Association of Counties Workers' Compensation Trust, 2004 MT 367 (No. 04-206) Where deputy sheriff’s employer knew drinking alcohol in hospitality suite was part of employment-related conference, the employee did not deviate from the course and scope of his employment by continuing consumption of alcohol and wandering hotel after closure of hospitality suite. His death from injuries sustained after falling from fourth or fifth floor balcony was within the course and scope of employment.
Van Vleet v. Montana Association of Counties Workers' Compensation Trust, 2004 MT 367 (No. 04-206) The burden of proving an employee deviated from the course and scope of employment is on the employer or workers’ compensation insurer.
Carrillo v. Liberty Northwest Insurance, 278 Mont. 1, 922 P.2d 1189 (1996) Claimant was within course and scope of employment during her coffee break when she was struck by an automobile while crossing a street en route to a gift shop to purchase a mug for a co-worker leaving employment. Rather than apply section 39-71-407(3), MCA (1991), relating to travel, the Supreme Court looked to factors enunciated by other courts, and as set forth in Larson’s Treatise, for determining whether employees on break are covered. Those factors include (1) whether the employee was paid during the break; (2) whether right to break is fixed in the employment contract pursuant to policy or regulation; (3) whether there are restrictions on where the employee may go during break; (4) whether the employee’s activity during the break constituted a substantial personal deviation.
 
WORKERS' COMPENSATION COURT DECISIONS
Michalak v. Liberty Northwest [03/22/07] 2007 MTWCC 14 Where the company invited its employees and vendors to the company picnic, used the picnic as a forum for its officers to address the employees, and the company president agreed the picnic was good for the company and promoted good relations, the company and its employees mutually benefitted from the activities and thus the fourth factor of the “course and scope” test is satisfied.
Michalak v. Liberty Northwest [03/22/07] 2007 MTWCC 14 Where the company picnic was hosted by the company president, a company secretary organized the picnic, shopped for supplies and assisted with the dinner, the company paid for the supplies and rented the wave runners, the company representatives believed the company took a deduction for the expenses it incurred for the picnic and used its property at the picnic, the employer controlled or participated in the activity and thus the third factor of the “course and scope” test is satisfied.
Michalak v. Liberty Northwest [03/22/07] 2007 MTWCC 14 Where Petitioner felt compelled to attend the company picnic because his supervisor requested he oversee the wave runners at the picnic, vendors were invited to attend the picnic, and the company president addressed the employees, the employer either directly or indirectly compelled the employee’s attendance at the activity and thus the second factor of the “course and scope” test is satisfied.
Michalak v. Liberty Northwest [03/22/07] 2007 MTWCC 14 Where a company picnic occurred at the home of the company president, the company inquired about the employees’ attendance by placing a notice of the picnic with the employee’s pay stubs, posting a written notice, circulating a sign-up sheet, and by asking for a headcount, the activity was undertaken at the employer’s request and thus the first factor of the “course and scope” test is satisfied.

Zahn v. Town Pump, Inc./Employers Insurance of Wausau Mutual Company [09/05/06] 2006 MTWCC 30 Whether an injury arises “out of and in the course of employment” is determined by analyzing four factors, all of which must be considered together and none of which is conclusive: (1) whether the activity was undertaken at the employer’s request; (2) whether employer, either directly or indirectly, compelled employee’s attendance at the activity; (3) whether employer controlled or participated in the activity; and (4) whether both employer and employee mutually benefitted from the activity.
Baarson v. Montana State Fund [8/16/04] 2004 MTWCC 60 To be compensable, an injury or death must have occurred in the course of employment and also have arisen out of the employment. The "course of employment" refers to whether the injury occurred at the workplace while the claimant was working. "Arising out" of employment requires that the injury or death be caused by the employment.
Bain v. Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. [5/27/04] 2004 MTWCC 45 Whether an injury arises “out of and in the course of employment” is determined by analyzing four factors, all of which must be considered together and none of which is conclusive: (1) whether the activity was undertaken at the employer’s request; (2) whether employer, either directly or indirectly, compelled employee’s attendance at the activity; (3) whether the employer controlled or participated in the activity; and (4) whether both employer and employee mutually benefitted in the activity.
Bain v. Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. [5/27/04] 2004 MTWCC 45 Section 39-71-407, MCA (1995-2003), provides for compensation for injuries “arising out of and in the course and scope of employment.” In Pinyard v. State Compensation Ins. Fund, 271 Mont. 115, 119-120, 894 P.2d 932, 935 (1995), the Supreme Court parsed the requirement, holding as follows:

“The language ‘in the course of employment,’ generally refers to the time, place and circumstances of an injury in relation to employment. . . . The phrase “arising out of” is related to the concept of causation.”
Stacks v. Travelers/State Fund [3/1/01] 2001 MTWCC 9Insurer's argument that it was not liable for claimant's fall at work because claimant's leg "gave out" as the result of a preexisting condition is rejected where evidence indicated claimant in fact slipped and fell.