Dover Elevator Co. v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office of State of Colo., No. 97CA2155
| Docket Nº | No. 97CA2155 |
| Citation | 961 P.2d 1141 |
| Case Date | June 11, 1998 |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Colorado |
Page 1141
Petitioners,
v.
The INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS OFFICE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO
and Laura Dickerson, Respondents.
Div. I.
Page 1142
Collins & Pringle, LLC, Patrick J. Collins, Dwight L. Pringle, Denver, for Petitioners.
No Appearance for Industrial Claim Appeals Office.
The Elliott Law Offices, James E. Elliott, Jr., Mark D. Elliott, Arvada, for Respondent Laura Dickerson.
Opinion by Judge JONES.
Petitioners, Dover Elevator Company (employer) and its insurer, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, seek review of a final order of the Industrial Claim Appeals Office (Panel) which determined that Laura Dickerson (claimant) suffered a compensable injury. We affirm.
Claimant injured her right knee while bowling during an off-premises company Christmas party arranged by employer. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that the testimony of claimant and several witnesses, as well as an exhibit, established that attendance at the Christmas party was mandatory. The ALJ also found that, although the party was held away from the company's premises, it was at a bowling center chosen by a supervisor; that the activity occurred during normal working hours; and that the employer initiated, organized, sponsored, and paid for the party. The ALJ also found that employee morale had been low and that employer derived a benefit from the Christmas party, which was held, in part, to boost employee morale. Accordingly, the ALJ concluded that claimant's injury was compensable. On review, the Panel affirmed.
I.
In City & County of Denver v. Lee, 168 Colo. 208, 450 P.2d 352 (1969), the supreme court addressed the question whether an injury incurred by an employee engaging in a work-related recreational activity arises out of and in the course of employment. There, a police officer was compensated for an injury sustained while playing basketball on an employer-sponsored team.
Without discussing the relative weight of the factors or determining that the presence of any one factor required a conclusion that the recreational activity arose out of and occurred in the course of employment, Lee set forth a framework for analysis to determine whether a recreational-type activity arises out of and in the course of employment. City of Northglenn v. Eltrich, 908 P.2d 139 (Colo.App.1995), aff'd sub nom. Price v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 919 P.2d 207 (Colo.1996). That framework includes as factors to be considered: (1) whether the activity occurred during working hours; (2) whether it occurred on or off the employer's premises; (3) whether participation in it was required; (4) whether the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sheerer v. Bath Iron Works Corp., BRB 00-0778
...Cal. Labor Code §3600(a)(9); Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. 39-A §102(11)(C); see also Dover Elevator Co. v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 961 P.2d 1141 (Colo. Ct. App. 1998); Quinones v. P.C. Richard & Son, 310 N.J.Super. 63, 707 A.2d 1372 ( N.J.Super.Ct.App.Div. 1998); Connery v. Liberty N.W. Ins......
-
People v. Carlson, No. 01CA1125.
...person of the use or benefit of a thing of value required under § 18-4-401(1)(a). See Dover Elevator Co. v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office, 961 P.2d 1141 (Colo.App.1998)(words and phrases should be given their plain and ordinary meaning, unless the result is absurd); see also People v. Dist. C......
-
Foundation v. City of Colo. Springs, Court of Appeals No. 14CA0228
...define "constructing." We thus again apply the plain and ordinary meaning to the term. Dover Elevator Co. v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office, 961 P.2d 1141, 1143 (Colo.App.1998). We note first that, in defining dangerous condition, the General Assembly chose the verb "constructing" rather than ......
-
Voller v. Gertz, No. 01CA2384.
...1136 should be given their plain and ordinary meaning, unless the result is absurd. Dover Elevator Co. v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office, 961 P.2d 1141 First, the plain language of the former § 8-4-114 applies to disputes between an employee and an employer and not to other labor disputes. The......