Atkinson v. 2M Co.
| Decision Date | 29 January 2019 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 45918 |
| Citation | 164 Idaho 577,434 P.3d 181 |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
| Parties | Matthew ATKINSON, Claimant-Respondent, v. 2M COMPANY, INC., Employer, and Employers Assurance Company, Surety, Defendants-Appellants. |
Gardner Law Office, Boise, attorneys for Appellant. Michael G. McPeek argued.
Bradford S. Eidam, PLLC, Boise, attorney for Respondent. Bradford S. Eidam argued.
2M Company Inc. ("2M") appeals an Industrial Commission ("Commission") decision that determined Matthew Atkinson was entitled to reasonable medical benefits for injuries he sustained in an accident on his way to work. The Commission found that an exception to the "going and coming" rule applied based on 2M's intent to compensate Atkinson for his travel time while going to or coming from work. 2M and its surety, Employer Assurance Company, timely appealed. We affirm on different grounds.
At the time of his accident, Atkinson was a salaried employee of 2M, a wholesaler of well drilling and irrigation supplies. Atkinson was a territorial sales person for 2M and was responsible for providing 2M's hallmark "Legendary Service" to customers by supplying technical assistance at the customer's place of business, running parts to them, and assisting in the installation of those parts. 2M provided Atkinson with a pickup truck owned by the company so that he had the ability to call on potential and existing customers. Atkinson would respond to an average of two or three emergency customer calls per week, often late in the evening. Atkinson was issued a company credit card to purchase fuel for the pickup truck, and 2M paid for any necessary vehicle servicing and maintenance. 2M also required Atkinson to work one Saturday every five weeks staffing 2M's Meridian office from approximately 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. Atkinson was scheduled to work on March 11, 2017, after switching Saturday shifts with a coworker.
On March 10, 2017, Atkinson drove his personal vehicle to the Whitewater Saloon for a date night with his wife. Neither felt comfortable driving afterwards so they left the car there and took a taxi home. The following morning Atkinson's wife needed to retrieve her car to pick up their children who had spent the night at their grandparent's house. Atkinson planned to drop his wife off at Whitewater Saloon and go on to work for his shift; as such, Atkinson and his wife left their home together in his company pickup truck the morning of March 11, 2017. Whitewater Saloon is on Atkinson's usual route to 2M's office.
However, as the couple was leaving their subdivision, Atkinson noticed he could not see clearly out of the front windshield due to frost, so he pulled over to the side of the road to scrape the windshield with a credit card. As he was scraping the windshield he was struck by another vehicle and sustained significant injuries to his right leg and shoulder.
On May 24, 2017, Atkinson filed a complaint with the Commission. A hearing was conducted on September 13, 2017, to determine the compensability of Atkinson's claim. The Referee found that Atkinson was entitled to benefits because he was injured in the course of his employment as he was traveling to work in employer-provided transportation when the accident occurred. Specifically, the Referee held that Hansen v. Estate of Harvey , 119 Idaho 333, 806 P.2d 426 (1991) (" Hansen "), was controlling and dispositive.
The Commission confirmed that Atkinson was entitled to reasonable medical benefits for injuries sustained in the March 11, 2017, accident, but it rejected the Referee's reliance upon Hansen . The Commission issued its own findings of fact and conclusions of law that found Case of Barker , 105 Idaho 108, 666 P.2d 635 (1983) (" Barker I ") to be dispositive. 2M and its surety, Employer Assurance Company, timely appealed to this Court.
1. Whether the Commission applied the correct legal standards in determining that Atkinson's accident occurred in the course of his employment with 2M.
2. Whether the Commission erred by failing to make a specific factual finding concerning whether Atkinson's accident arose out of his employment with 2M.
3. Whether Atkinson is entitled to attorney fees on appeal.
"When reviewing a decision of the Industrial Commission, this Court exercises free review over questions of law." Sundquist v. Precision Steel & Gypsum, Inc ., 141 Idaho 450, 453, 111 P.3d 135, 138 (2005) (citing Uhl v. Ballard Medical Products, Inc ., 138 Idaho 653, 657, 67 P.3d 1265, 1269 (2003) ). However, this Court will uphold the Commission's factual findings so long as they are supported by substantial and competent evidence. Id . "Substantial and competent evidence is relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept to support a conclusion." Id . "To determine whether an accident occurred arising out of and in the course of [a] Claimant's employment, the Court determines whether the Commission correctly applied the law of the worker's compensation to the facts determined by the Commission." Combes v. State, Indus. Special Indem. Fund , 130 Idaho 430, 432, 942 P.2d 554, 556 (1997) (internal citation omitted).
The Court "views all facts and inferences in the light most favorable to the party who prevailed before the Commission," Dinius v. Loving Care & More, Inc ., 133 Idaho 572, 574, 990 P.2d 738, 740 (1999), and "liberally construe[s] the provisions of the worker's compensation law in favor of the employee, in order to serve the humane purpose for which the law was promulgated." Murray-Donahue v. Nat'l Car Rental Licensee Ass'n , 127 Idaho 337, 340, 900 P.2d 1348, 1351 (1995).
Hamilton v. Alpha Servs., LLC , 158 Idaho 683, 688, 351 P.3d 611, 616 (2015) (alteration in original).
The crux of 2M's argument is that the Commission impermissibly expanded the Court's payment-for-travel-time doctrine to hold that Atkinson's accident arose out of and in the course of his employment with 2M.
"The applicable standard for determining whether an employee is entitled to compensation under the Worker's Compensation Act requires that the injury must have been caused by an accident ‘arising out of and in the course of any employment.’ " Dinius , 133 Idaho at 574, 990 P.2d at 740 ; I.C. § 72-102(18)(a). "The words ‘out of’ have been held to refer to the origin and cause of the accident and the words ‘in the course of’ refer to the time, place, and the circumstances under which the accident occurred." Spivey v. Novartis Seed Inc. , 137 Idaho 29, 33, 43 P.3d 788, 792 (2002) (quoting Dinius , 133 Idaho at 574, 990 P.2d at 740 ).
The "going and coming" rule states that an employee is not within the course and scope of his employment on his way to and from work. Finholt v. Cresto , 143 Idaho 894, 898, 155 P.3d 695, 699 (2007) (citing Ridgway v. Combined Ins. Companies of America , 98 Idaho 410, 411, 565 P.2d 1367, 1368 (1977) ). As a result, an employee traveling to and from work is usually not covered by worker's compensation protection unless an exception applies. Clark v. Daniel Morine Const. Co ., 98 Idaho 114, 115, 559 P.2d 293, 294 (1977). The reason an employee is generally not awarded compensation for injuries that occur while traveling to and from work is that the employment relationship is considered suspended from the time the employee leaves his work to go home until he resumes his work the next day. Barker I , 105 Idaho at 109, 666 P.2d at 636. That said, this Court has identified several exceptions to the going and coming rule, "including: (1) the special errand; (2) the traveling employee; (3) peculiar risk, and; [4 the] dual purpose doctrine." Kelly v. Blue Ribbon Linen Supply, Inc. , 159 Idaho 324, 328, 360 P.3d 333, 337 (2015) (internal citation omitted).
This Court articulated an additional exception in Barker I that expands an employee's course of employment to include instances where the employee can demonstrate that the employer regards the employee's travel as part of his job. In Barker I , a decedent's wife filed a claim for death benefits after the decedent was involved in an accident while driving from a work site to a dentist appointment. 105 Idaho at 109, 666 P.2d at 636. Per his union contract, the decedent was paid $90 per week as a travel allowance. Id . The Commission denied benefits after concluding that the decedent was not engaged in employment for the employer at the time of the accident and that payment of travel expenses was irrelevant to whether an exception to the going and coming rule should apply. Id .
The decedent's wife appealed, arguing that when the employer pays for travel expenses the journey should be considered in the course of employment. Id . at 110, 666 P.2d at 637. This Court reversed and remanded the Commission's decision, holding that "payment of travel expenses along with other evidence indicating the employer intended to compensate the employee for travel time, will justify expanding the course of employment to include going to and from work." Id . at 110–11, 666 P.2d at 637–38 (emphasis in original). The Court cited favorably to two factors that could aid in determining whether an employer intended to compensate an employee for travel to and from work: (1) extended cross-country travel to reach the employment site; and (2) size of the travel allowance paid. Id . at 110, 666 P.2d at 637. The Court then instructed the Commission to consider any potential "other evidence" on remand.
The parties submitted no additional evidence on remand. The Commission denied benefits again, concluding that it "could find no evidence other than the actual payment itself, to indicate that the employer intended to compensate the employee for travel time or travel expense."
Matter...
To continue reading
Request your trial