Employment: Course and Scope: Generally

MONTANA SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Hopkins v. Uninsured Employers' Fund, 2011 MT 49 Although there was conflicting evidence as to whether the claimant was performing a task which he had been assigned to do on the specific day of his injury, he was performing one of his regular employment duties at the time of his injury.  No personal activity “severed” the activity from the continuity of his employment-related duties and he was therefore within the course and scope of his employment.
Michalak v. Liberty Northwest Ins. Corp. [01/03/08] 2008 MT 3, 341 Mont. 63, 175 P.3d 893 Where the WCC made no findings regarding the manner in which an employee operated a wave runner other than finding that he was injured during the performance of his duties and found the employee to be a credible witness, the Supreme Court will not make additional findings of fact regarding the employee’s injury and whether the employee abandoned the course and scope of his employment by operating a wave runner recklessly and at high speed.
Michalak v. Liberty Northwest Ins. Corp. [01/03/08] 2008 MT 3, 341 Mont. 63, 175 P.3d 893 The WCC’s finding as to the fourth Courser factor – that the company and its employees mutually benefitted from the picnic – is supported by substantial credible evidence where company employees and the president testified that the picnics were good for the company and promoted good relations.
Michalak v. Liberty Northwest Ins. Corp. [01/03/08] 2008 MT 3, 341 Mont. 63, 175 P.3d 893 The WCC’s finding as to the third Courser factor – that the company controlled and participated in the picnic activities – is supported by substantial credible evidence where the company president selected the picnic date and hosted it at his home on Flathead Lake, the company paid for picnic expenses, including wave runners, paddleboats, food and beverages, and a company representatives believed the company took a deduction for the expenses it incurred for the picnic, and the company hosts an annual horseshoe tournament.
Michalak v. Liberty Northwest Ins. Corp. [01/03/08] 2008 MT 3, 341 Mont. 63, 175 P.3d 893 The WCC’s finding regarding the second Courser factor – that the company compelled the employees’ attendance at the picnic – is supported by substantial credible evidence where the employee 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.
Michalak v. Liberty Northwest Ins. Corp. [01/03/08] 2008 MT 3, 341 Mont. 63, 175 P.3d 893 The WCC’s finding under the first Courser factor – that the picnic was undertaken at the company’s request – is supported by substantial credible evidence where the 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 employees’ paychecks, posting a written notice, circulating a sign-up sheet, and by asking for a headcount.
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

Erhard v. Liberty Northwest Ins. Corp. [08/01/12] 2012 MTWCC 26 An employment relationship is a contract between an employer and an employee, and whether an employment relationship exists is a question of contract law.  An agreement may contain conditions precedent which the parties must meet before the employment relationship begins.  Here, Petitioner was required to complete all necessary paperwork, sign a job application, and have the physical ability to perform the duties of the job.  Because Petitioner had not satisfied the conditions precedent at the time of his accident and injury, no employment agreement existed and he was therefore not injured in the course and scope of his employment. 

McLeish v. Rochdale Ins. Co. [07/18/11] 2011 MTWCC 18 Where Petitioner suffered an “undetermined medical event” which caused him to fall on a flat surface, his injury occurred in the course of his employment but did not arise out of his employment under § 39-71-407(1), MCA, as his employment was not one of the contributing causes which placed him in harm’s way.

Chapman v. Twin City Fire Ins. Co. [11/05/10] 2010 MTWCC 30 Petitioner has established that her injury occurred when she was in the course and scope of her employment when she injured her back while changing workstations at her employer’s request.
Hopkins v. Uninsured Employers' Fund [05/04/10] 2010 MTWCC 9 Where Petitioner worked around the bear park at the alleged employer’s request on multiple occasions over the course of several years, Petitioner entered the bears’ pen to feed the bears at the alleged employer’s request on the date of the accident, and the alleged employer benefitted from the care and feeding of the bears, based on the four Courser factors, the Court concluded that Petitioner was performing duties in the course and scope of his employment at the time of the bear attack.
Rau v. Montana State Fund [06/04/08] 2008 MTWCC 26 Petitioner experienced an orthostatic faint, which can occur some seconds after an individual has changed from a supine or sitting to standing position. Petitioner’s job duties included leaving her desk to assist customers. Petitioner’s performance of these duties precipitated the syncopal episode which in turn caused her head injury. The actions which caused her injury were within the course and scope of her employment and her injury is therefore compensable.
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.