National Health Laboratories v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office of State of Colo.

Decision Date10 September 1992
Docket NumberNo. 92CA0309,92CA0309
Citation844 P.2d 1259
PartiesNATIONAL HEALTH LABORATORIES and CNA Insurance Companies, Petitioners, v. The INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS OFFICE OF the STATE OF COLORADO and Angela M. Sullivan, Respondents. . II
CourtColorado Court of Appeals

White and Steele, P.C., Michael A. Perales, Robert H. Coate, Denver, for petitioners.

Gale A. Norton, Atty. Gen., Raymond T. Slaughter, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen., Timothy M. Tymkovich, Sol. Gen., Thomas S. Parchman, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for respondent Indus. Claim Appeals Office.

Dallas, Holland & O'Toole, P.C., Michelle Holland, Denver, for respondent Angela M. Sullivan.

Opinion by Judge PIERCE.

The issue in this review proceeding is whether operation of a motor vehicle constitutes a special hazard of employment. Petitioners, National Health Laboratories and CNA Insurance Companies, contest a final order of the Industrial Claim Appeals Panel awarding the claimant, Angela M. Sullivan, temporary disability and medical benefits. We affirm.

The claimant, a salesperson for petitioners, was driving from lunch to a sales appointment in a company car when she had a seizure, lost consciousness, and collided with a utility pole, sustaining multiple severe injuries. Although claimant had a history of epileptic seizures, she was driving with the knowledge and permission of both her doctor and employer. The doctor had opined that she did not need medication any longer for this condition.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) concluded that the accident occurred in the course and scope of claimant's employment. He further found that, while the immediate cause of the accident was claimant's epileptic seizure, the injuries sustained in the accident were compensable because claimant's employment subjected her to the additional risk of vehicular travel. The Panel affirmed the ALJ's order.

I.

Initially, we find no merit in petitioners' argument that the accident was outside the scope of employment since claimant was returning to work duties following her lunch break.

Disposition of this issue is controlled by long-established law recognizing the compensability of injuries sustained during the course of an employee's travel to perform work duties for his or her employer. Berry's Coffee Shop v. Palomba, 161 Colo. 369, 423 P.2d 2 (1967); Continental Airlines v. Industrial Commission, 709 P.2d 953 (Colo.App.1985). Therefore, the dispositive fact is not that claimant was returning to work duties following lunch, but rather, that she was driving a company car and was en route to a sales meeting required by her employment at the time of injury.

An injury is compensable if the employee's travel is at the express or implied request of the employer, Loffland Brothers v. Baca, 651 P.2d 431 (Colo.App.1982), or if the travel confers a benefit on the employer beyond the sole fact of the employee's arrival, Whale Communications v. Claimants in re Death of Osborn, 759 P.2d 848 (Colo.App.1988), or if the employer made provisions for the employee's transportation. Monolith Portland Cement v. Burak, 772 P.2d 688 (Colo.App.1989).

Each of the foregoing requisites was satisfied here. Claimant was obviously engaged in a work duty which she was both authorized and obligated to perform and which necessitated vehicular travel. Therefore, the accident occurred in the course and scope of her employment.

II.

Petitioners next argue that claimant's epileptic seizure was a personal risk and that no special hazard of employment brought the accident within the statutory requirement that an injury "arise out of" employment. We disagree.

An otherwise compensable work injury does not cease to arise out of employment because it is partially attributable to a preexisting physical infirmity of the employee....

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Nunn v. Texaco Trading and Transp., Inc.
    • United States
    • Nebraska Court of Appeals
    • November 1, 1994
    ... ... No. A-94-083 ... Court of Appeals of Nebraska ... Nov. 1, 1994 ... Syllabus by ... of HS approached a level that posed a health risk ...         When Nunn arrived at ...   The court specifically rejected Texaco's claim that Nunn's accident did not arise out of his ... Appellate courts in this state have not squarely addressed the issue of whether ... Health v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office, 844 P.2d 1259 (Colo.App.1992); Bennett v ... ...
  • Wild West Radio, Inc. v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office of State of Colo.
    • United States
    • Colorado Court of Appeals
    • May 18, 1995
    ... ... See Benson v. Colorado Compensation Insurance Authority, 870 P.2d 624 (Colo.App.1994); National Health Laboratories v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 844 P.2d 1259 (Colo.App.1992). Their ... ...
  • Benson v. Colorado Compensation Ins. Authority, 93CA0070
    • United States
    • Colorado Court of Appeals
    • February 10, 1994
    ... ... Health Services, Defendants-Appellants, ... Farmers ... No. 93CA0070 ... Colorado Court of Appeals, ... Feb. 10, 1994 ...         Hult, ... , plaintiff filed a workers' compensation claim with the Division of Labor. CCIA, Alpha & ... Family Mutual Insurance Co., 843 P.2d 1302 (Colo.1993). Hence, if, as in this case, a plaintiff ... National Health Laboratories v. Industrial Claim Appeals ... ...
  • Hembry v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office of State of Colo., 93CA1812
    • United States
    • Colorado Court of Appeals
    • June 16, 1994
    ... ... National Health Laboratories v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 844 P.2d 1259 (Colo.App.1992). See also ... ...
2 books & journal articles
  • Chapter 25 - § 25.2 • WORKERS' COMPENSATION EXCLUSIVE REMEDY PROVISION
    • United States
    • Colorado Bar Association The Practitioner's Guide to Colorado Employment Law 2022 (CBA) Chapter 25 Workers' Compensation and Disability Issues
    • Invalid date
    ...the employment, the worker must prove a special hazard that contributes to the injury. Nat'l Health Labs. v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office, 844 P.2d 1259, 1260 (Colo. App. 1992). If the injury is caused by an ubiquitous condition, one that is found in all places on the job as well as off the ......
  • Chapter 25 - § 25.2 • WORKERS' COMPENSATION EXCLUSIVE REMEDY PROVISION
    • United States
    • Colorado Bar Association The Practitioner's Guide to Colorado Employment Law (CBA) Chapter 25 Workers' Compensation and Disability Issues
    • Invalid date
    ...the employment, the worker must prove a special hazard that contributes to the injury. Nat'l Health Labs. v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office, 844 P.2d 1259, 1260 (Colo. App. 1992). If the injury is caused by an ubiquitous condition, one that is found in all places on the job as well as off the ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT