 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Berg v. State2/25/2005
se and scope of his employment merely while driving to and from the work site under what can only be described as relatively typical (in Wyoming/Colorado) commuting circumstances.
Chapman, 899 P.2d at 50-51.
[ ] Berg attempts to distinguish Chapman by arguing that there was no evidence of the employees' motel expenses being paid by their employer, while here it was established that the employer provided the accommodations. The record shows, however, that Berg was not required to stay at the camp. Berg's supervisor, Greg Garton, and Cyclone's head of operations, Patrick Hladky, testified that it was not a condition of employment that employees stay at the camp. The camp was a benefit provided to the employees that they could use at their discretion. Berg did not dispute this testimony and admitted that he was not aware of any policy requiring him to stay at the camp. Berg attempts to neutralize that testimony by arguing that he was "effectively" required to stay at the camp because there were no viable, alternative housing facilities within a reasonable distance of the drill site. Berg cites the testimony of Garton, declaring that motel accommodations in the nearest town, Big Piney, were minimal at best and always booked. Nevertheless, the fact is that the employees were not required to stay at the camp. While the camp may have been the most practical and convenient option, that did not mean that Berg could not have stayed elsewhere. There is no evidence in the record that other lodging options were not available. Practicality and convenience do not create an employer mandate. Our holding in Chapman applies equally to the situation before us in this case. We are not persuaded that Berg was in the course and scope of his employment at the time of his injury.
CONCLUSION
[ ] The hearing examiner's decision finding that Berg had sustained a compensable injury was not supported by substantial evidence. The District Court's order reversing the hearing examiner is affirmed.
|