Youngquist Bros. Oil & Gas, Inc. v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office of Colo.
| Decision Date | 25 February 2016 |
| Docket Number | Court of Appeals No. 15CA1165 |
| Parties | YOUNGQUIST BROTHERS OIL & GAS, INC., Petitioner, v. INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS OFFICE OF the State of Colorado and Travis Miner, Respondents. |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Treece Alfrey Musat P.C., James B. Fairbanks, Denver, Colorado, for Petitioner.
No Appearance for Respondent Industrial Claim Appeals Office.
Killian & Davis P.C., Damon J. Davis, Christopher H. Richter, Grand Junction, Colorado, for Respondent Travis Miner.
Opinion by JUDGE DUNN
¶ 1 Youngquist Brothers Oil & Gas, Inc., has no business operations in Colorado, but it recruits employees from Colorado to work on its North Dakota oil rigs. Within days of being hired, one of these Colorado recruits, Travis Miner, was injured in North Dakota while working on a Youngquist oil rig. Miner returned to Colorado and sought benefits under the Workers' Compensation Act of Colorado (Act), §§ 8–40–101 to 8–47–209, C.R.S. 2015.
¶ 2 The administrative law judge (ALJ) awarded Miner benefits, concluding he was hired in Colorado and suffered a compensable work-related injury. Because Youngquist did not carry Colorado workers' compensation insurance, the ALJ also imposed a fifty percent penalty against Youngquist. The Industrial Claim Appeals Panel (Panel) affirmed the ALJ's order.
¶ 3 Youngquist contends it is not subject to the Act and therefore the Panel's decision should be set aside. We disagree and affirm.
¶ 4 Youngquist is an oil and gas company with operations in North Dakota. It hires workers nationally and internationally, but primarily from Texas, Oklahoma, Indiana, and Colorado. It maintains workers' compensation insurance in North Dakota, but not in Colorado.
¶ 5 Miner lived in Grand Junction, Colorado. After learning that Youngquist was looking for employees to work on its oil rigs in North Dakota, Miner submitted an online application. Later that day, a Youngquist representative called Miner and conducted a telephonic interview. Miner testified that at the conclusion of the interview, Youngquist offered him a job, which he accepted. Youngquist then arranged for Miner to fly to North Dakota the following day. A Youngquist representative met Miner at the airport and took him to get supplies before driving him to Youngquist's offices.
¶ 6 Once there, Miner completed new employee paperwork and passed a preliminary drug screen. He also provided a hair follicle for a drug test, the results of which were not immediately available. After completing the paperwork and the preliminary drug screen, Miner began his first evening rig shift.
¶ 7 During the following evening shift, Miner slipped and fell down the rig's stairs, hurting his back. Miner did not immediately report the injury to Youngquist because he did not "want to be that guy that got hurt the second day of work." Miner worked three more shifts and then reported his injury to his supervisor.
¶ 8 Youngquist agreed to allow Miner to seek medical treatment in Colorado and arranged for Miner to return to Colorado. Miner's treating physician concluded that although Miner had a preexisting back injury, the condition was worsened by his work-related fall.
¶ 9 Miner filed a workers' compensation claim with North Dakota Workforce Safety and Insurance. North Dakota denied his claim without a hearing, apparently due to Miner's pre-existing back condition.1
¶ 10 Miner then filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits in Colorado. After a hearing, the ALJ determined that Miner was hired in Colorado and his claim was therefore subject to the Act. The ALJ further found Miner suffered a compensable work-related injury, awarded him benefits, and imposed a fifty percent penalty on Youngquist for failing to carry workers' compensation insurance in Colorado.
¶ 11 Youngquist contends it is not subject to the Act because (1) it does not conduct business in Colorado; (2) Miner was not hired in Colorado; and (3) it does not have sufficient contacts with Colorado to establish personal jurisdiction. We disagree.
¶ 12 Colorado has jurisdiction to award benefits for out-of-state work-related injuries if an employee was (1) hired or regularly employed in Colorado and (2) injured within six months of leaving Colorado. § 8–41–204, C.R.S. 2015; see also Hathaway Lighting, Inc. v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office, 143 P.3d 1187, 1189 (Colo. App. 2006) ().
¶ 13 Youngquist argues that because it has no business operations in Colorado, the extraterritorial provision does not apply to it. But the extraterritorial provision does not require an employer hiring a Colorado employee to have other contacts with Colorado. § 8–41–204 ; see generally Hathaway Lighting, Inc., 143 P.3d at 1190. Nor is the provision limited to Colorado employers or employers who conduct business in Colorado. § 8–41–204. If an employer hires an employee in Colorado, that is enough. Id. ; see also State Comp. Ins. Fund v. Howington, 133 Colo. 583, 592–93, 298 P.2d 963, 968 (1956).
¶ 14 The power to extend protection to workers injured beyond its borders is rooted in Colorado's interest in the welfare and protection of its citizens and their dependents. Howington, 133 Colo. at 592–93, 298 P.2d at 968. Such power falls within Colorado's legitimate police powers. See id. ; see also Alaska Packers Ass'n v. Indus. Accident Comm'n, 294 U.S. 532, 542–43, 55 S.Ct. 518, 79 L.Ed. 1044 (1935) ().
¶ 15 In light of the strong policy interests underpinning extraterritorial workers' compensation provisions, Colorado is hardly alone in providing protection to employees hired in state and injured outside its borders. Indeed, most states have some form of extraterritorial workers' compensation provisions. See 1 Modern Workers Compensation § 104:16, Westlaw (database updated Nov. 2015) (collecting provisions and cases). Even North Dakota—where Youngquist operates—imposes extraterritorial jurisdiction in certain circumstances. See N.D. Cent.Code § 65–08–01 (2015).
¶ 16 We therefore are not persuaded by Youngquist's contention that it is not subject to the Act because—other than recruiting and hiring employees in Colorado—it conducts no business in this state. The extraterritorial provision means what it says. If an employer hires a Colorado employee in this state and the employee is injured within six months of leaving Colorado, the employer is subject to the Act.2
¶ 17 Because it is undisputed Miner was injured within six months of leaving Colorado, the extraterritorial provision applies if Miner was hired in Colorado.
Youngquist contends that Miner was hired in North Dakota and that the ALJ erred in finding Miner was hired in Colorado. We disagree.
¶ 18 Where a contract is made is generally determined by the parties' intent. See Denver Truck Exch. v. Perryman, 134 Colo. 586, 592, 307 P.2d 805, 810 (1957). "[I]t is considered to be the place where the offer is accepted, or where the last act necessary to a meeting of the minds or to complete the contract is performed." Id. (citation omitted). As long as the fundamental elements of contract formation are present, however, an employment contract may be formed even though not every formality attending commercial contracts is observed. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp. v. Apostolou, 866 P.2d 1384, 1387 (Colo. 1994) ; see generally 13 Arthur Larson & Lex K. Larson, Larson's Workers' Compensation Law § 47.10 (2015) ().
¶ 19 The existence of a contract for hire is a question of fact to be determined by the fact finder. See Tuttle v. ANR Freight Sys., Inc., 797 P.2d 825, 827 (Colo. App. 1990) (). We uphold an ALJ's factual determination if it is supported by substantial record evidence. § 843–308, C.R.S. 2015; see also Rocky Mountain Dairy Prods. v. Pease, 161 Colo. 216, 222–23, 422 P.2d 630, 633 (1966) ().
¶ 20 Specifically crediting Miner's testimony, the ALJ found that the last act necessary to complete Miner's hire occurred in Colorado when Youngquist telephonically offered Miner a job—and Miner accepted the job offer—while he was at home in Colorado. The ALJ also found that Youngquist's actions after the telephone call supported the finding that Miner was offered and accepted employment in Colorado. In particular, Youngquist arranged and paid for Miner's flight, met him at the airport, transported him to Youngquist's offices, and had him working on an oil rig shortly after completing paperwork and passing a preliminary drug screen.
¶ 21 To be sure, Youngquist presented testimony from which different inferences could be drawn. Specifically, Youngquist's office and safety manager testified that all offers of employment are conditional and only become permanent following successful completion of a drug test and a hair follicle test. But in weighing that testimony, the ALJ noted that the office and safety manager also testified that an employee would be removed from the jobsite and "terminated" if he failed to pass his drug screen. The ALJ found that such testimony implied that Miner "at that point" was "under a contract of hire." The ALJ therefore rejected the position advanced by Youngquist—that Miner was not yet hired when he arrived in North Dakota.
¶ 22 Youngquist disagrees with the ALJ's findings and asks this court to find that Miner was not hired until he completed paperwork and passed the...
To continue reading
Request your trial