Case Title: HAGERMAN v GALEN STATE HOSPITAL

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1977-10-25T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 13548 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1977 JOANN HAGERPWN , Claimant and Appellant, GALEN STATE HOSPITAL, Employer and STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Insurer, Defendants and Respondents. Appeal from: Workers' Compensation Court Honorable William E. Hunt, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Scanlon and Connors, Anaconda, Montana Jack Scanlon argued, Anaconda, Montana For Respondents: Andrew J. Utick argued, Helena, Montana Submitted: September 27, 1977 Decided: OCT 2 5 1 9 n Filed : jc 1 & 3 !!dl1 M r . J u s t i c e John Conway Harrison delivered the Opinion of the Court: This appeal a r i s e s from findings of f a c t , conclusions of law and judgment of the workers' compensation court. Two issues a r e presented for t h i s Court's consideration: 1. Did the workers' compensation court e r r i n f a i l i n g t o find the claimant provided a reasonable immediate economic benefit t o the employer i n necessarily having t o commute t o and from work, a distance of 25 miles a t her own expense? 2. Was the claimant acting within the scope of employ- ment i n commuting t o and from work a t her own expense when no r e s i d e n t i a l f a c i l i t i e s a r e available t o employees a t the employer's place of employment? Claimant Joann Hagerman, a nurses' aide a t Galen S t a t e Hospital, was injured i n an automobile accident on her way t o work on March 24, 1975. Claimant lived i n Anaconda, Montana some 12 112 miles from the hospital and commuted d a i l y t o and from work. She alleged there was inadequate housing a t the hospital to cover employees and living away from the i n s t i t u t i o n was a necessity. Out of some 304 employees, only 30 l i v e a t the hospital complex and the r e s t l i v e i n the Anaconda, Butte and Deer Lodge areas. A t the time of the accident there was no union contract provision for paying employees t r a v e l pay, nor was there any mass t r a n s i t system for the employees. Most employees e i t h e r drove t o work or participated i n c a r pools. The only pro- vision i n the employees' contract for t r a v e l pay was f o r an emergency ''call out". Claimant was not on a " c a l l out" on the day of the accident. It was a routine workday. 'The issues on appeal a r e directed a t whether the i n j u r i e s sustained by claimant in the accident a r e com- prnsable by reason of her employment, e n t i t l i n g her t o workers' compensation benefits? Claimant argues McMillen v. McKee and Company, 166 Mont. A00, 533 P.2d 1095 (1975); Ellingson v. Crick Co., Lb6 Mont. 431, 533 P.2d 1100 (1975); and Guarascio v. I n d u s t r i a l Accident Board, 140 Mont. 497, 374 P.2d 84. (1962); are controlling. W e disagree. Each of the c i t e d cases turned upon contracts t h a t gave the employee t r a v e l time i n one form o r another, and therefore do not apply. Here, claimant had no r i g h t t o any type of t r a v e l pay under her contractual agreement except f o r emergency " c a l l out". She was not performing work within the course of her employment when injured. Throughout the years t h i s State has had workers' com- pensation, t h i s Court has considered a number of cases where i n j u r i e s were sustained going to or coming from work and has found no recovery unless employee t r a v e l pay was covered under the employment contract or t h a t t r a v e l allowance was f o r t r a v e l f o r the special benefit of the employer. Nicholson v. Roundup Coal Min. Co., 79 Mont. 358, 257 P. 270 (1927) ; Herberson v. Great F a l l s Wood & Coal Co., 83 Mont. 527, 273 P. 294 (1929); Landeen v. Toole County Refining Co., 85 Mont. 41, 277 P. 615 (1929); Murray Hospital v. Angrove, 92 Mont. 101, 10 P.2d 577 (1932); Griffin v. I n d u s t r i a l Acc. Fund, 1 1 1 Mont. 110, 106 P.2d 346 (1940); McMillen v. McKee and Company, supra ; Guarascio v. Ind. Acc . B d . , supra. Unless transportation i s made a part of the employment contract or t r a v e l t o and from work i s recognized by l e g i s - l a t i v e enactment or contract, any i n j u r i e s suffered i n such rravel are outside the course and scope of the employment. The decision of the workers' compensation court i s affirmed. ~ J s t i c e / W e Concur: ~ h x f J u s t i c e