No. 86-344 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF 

LARRY McGAHA, Workers' Compensation Claimant, 

for a Declaratory Ruling on the Applicability 

of 539-71-402 (I), MCA (1983), to his Workers' 

Compensation Claim. 

LARRY McGAHA, 

Claimant and Respondent, 

-vsGREYHOUND LINES, INC., 

Defendant and Appellant. 

APPEAL FROM: The Workers' Compensation Court, The Honorable 

Timothy Reardon, Judge presiding. 

COUNSEL OF RECORD: 

For Appellant: 

Keefer, Roybal, Hanson, Stacey & Jarussi; Neil S. 

Keefer argued, Billings, Montana 

For Respondent : 

Datsopoulos, MacDonald & Lind; Dennis E. Lind argued, 

Missoula, Montana 

Submitted: March 20, 1987 

Decided: April 9, 1987 

Clerk 
Mr. Justice Fred J. Weber delivered the Opinion of the Court. 

The Workers' Compensation Court made a declaratory 

ruling that Mr. McGaha is eligible for Montana workers' 

compensation benefits for an injury suffered in Twin Falls, 

Idaho. Greyhound Lines, Inc., the self-insured employer, 

appeals. We affirm. 

The issue is whether the Workers' Compensation Court 

correctly ruled that Mr. McGaha is eligible for Montana 

workers' compensation benefits under § 39-71-402 (11, MCA, as 

an employee temporarily working out of state. 

The facts are not contested. Mr. McGaha had been employed as a driver for Greyhound Lines, Inc. (Greyhound) 

since 1974. He moved to Montana in 1978 and now resides in 

Clinton, Montana. Beginning in 1978 and up until just before 

his injury, Mr. McGaha was an wextra-board" bus driver out of 

Missoula, Montana. He regularly drove from Missoula to Butte 

and back. 

Greyhound bus drivers are subject to a negotiated labor 

agreement which ranks all drivers within regional districts 

according to seniority. Mr. McGaha's district included 

Montana, Utah, Idaho, Oregon and part of Washington. The 

drivers within the region with the most seniority have the 

opportunity of selecting the best paying bus runs, while 

those drivers with the least seniority must drive the lesser 

preferred routes. 

This seniority system comes into play when Greyhound 

chooses to reduce scheduled service. During slow periods, 

Greyhound reduces the number of active positions in its 

force. This reduction creates a domino effect whereby senior 

drivers within a district "bump" junior drivers out of their 

regular positions. In February 1983, a senior driver bumped 

Mr. McGaha from his position operating out of Missoula. 
According to the labor agreement, Mr. McGaha then had 24 

hours to bump another driver in the district. If he did not 

act within 24 hours, he would lose his guaranteed base wage. 

He bumped a junior driver from a regular bus route running 

between Salt Lake City, Utah, and Twin Falls, Idaho. On his 

first trip, Mr. McGaha injured his back while loading luggage 

in Twin Falls. 

Greyhound initiated payment of workers' compensation and 

medical benefits under Utah's workers' compensation laws. 

Utah was selected pursuant to Greyhound's policy of considering the point of origin of the bus run as the place of employment. Mr. McGaha has received temporary total disability 

benefits under the laws of Utah for over three years. He has 

been unable to return to work as a bus driver and recently 

underwent surgery for a spinal fusion. He now wishes to be 

allowed to recover benefits under the Montana extraterritorial workers' compensation statute, instead of under Utah law. 

Mr. McGaha accordingly argued to the Montana Workers' Compensation Court that he was employed in Montana, his absence 

from the state was temporary, and this temporary absence was 

incidental to his Montana employment. Greyhound argued that 

the labor agreement in effect at the time of Mr. McGaha's 

accident precluded extraterritorial application in this case. 

It characterized the labor agreement as a multi-state employment contract and argued that Mr. McGaha was a regional 

employee rather than a Montana employee. 

The Workers' Compensation Court entered a declaratory 

judgment that Mr. McGaha was entitled to Montana benefits. 

Greyhound appeals from that judgment. 

Did the Workers' Compensation Court correctly rule that 

Mr. McGaha is eligible for Montana workers' compensation 
benefits under 5 39-71-402(l), MCA, as an employee 

temporarily working out of state? 

Section 39-71-402(1), MCA, states: 

If a worker employed in this state who is subject 

to the provisions of this chapter temporarily 

leaves the state incidental to that employment and 

receives an injury arising out of and in the course 

of such employment, the provisions of this chapter 

shall apply to such worker as though he were injured within this state. 

The findings of the Workers ' Compensation court which relate 

to this issue are: 

8. As a result of a cutback in the Greyhound 

driver work force in February of 1983, claimant was 

displaced or bumped from his extra board position 

in Missoula, Montana, by a senior driver from 

Spokane, Washington. 

9. Greyhound provides a guaranteed minimum salary 

to its drivers. 

10. Pursuant to the labor agreement, a displaced 

driver has 24 hours to find a position within the 

district in order to avoid losing the guaranteed 

salary. If a displaced driver takes longer than 24 

hours, the driver has up to five days to displace 

another driver within the district in order to 

receive a proportionate share of his guaranteed 

salary. 

11. In order for a driver to continue his salaried 

employment with Greyhound he is required to use his 

seniority and displace another driver within the 

district. 

12. In the event that a senior driver does not 

exercise his seniority privilege in displacing 

another driver within the district, Greyhound may 

and has terminated a driver's employment. 

13. Claimant chose to displace a driver in Salt 

Lake City, Utah because it paid better and was the 

closest available location to his family and residence in Clinton, Montana. 

14. Claimant was in the State of Utah less than 24 

hours prior to his injury on February 13, 1983, in 

Twin Falls, Idaho on his first trip originating out 

of Utah. 
15. Claimant stayed with friends overnight in Salt 

Lake City and .did not establish or intend to establish any permanent address or domicile. 

18. Claimant has no interest in Utah other than the 

trip which resulted in his injury. 

19. Claimant intended to return to his home in 

Montana after his work in Utah. 

We are bound to uphold the facts found by the Workers' Compensation Court where there is substantial credible evidence 

in the record to support those findings of fact. McGee v. 

Bechtel Corp. (1979), 182 Mont. 149, 154, 595 P.2d 1156, 

1158-59. The transcript and the deposition of Mr. McGaha 

support the findings of fact of the lower court. We must 

therefore uphold them, despite Greyhound's argument that Mr. 

McGaha's employment on the Salt Lake City - Twin Falls route 

was neither guaranteed to be temporary nor a position assigned to him by Greyhound, but was totally dependent on the 

exercise of seniority rights by Mr. McGaha and the other 

drivers. 

The Workers' Compensation Court concluded that Montana 

had a sufficient interest in Mr. McGaha's case to justify 

application of the extraterritorial statute. The record 

supports this conclusion. Mr. McGaha had been employed in 

Montana for four years immediately prior to the date of his 

injury, and had established his residence in this state. He 

testified that he had once before had a similar absence from 

Montana, when he was "bumped" from his position in Missoula, 

and that his absence from the state at that time was of a 

short and temporary duration. In this instance, he was 

injured within his first 24 hours of working outside of 

Montana. He testified that he had intended to return to 

Montana as soon as possible, and that he did in fact regain 
his Missoula position, but was unable to work it due to his 

in juries. We must also consider the requirement of 

§ 39-71-104, MCA, that the workers' compensation statutes be 

liberally construed in favor of the claimant. 

We hold that the Workers' Compensation Court correctly 

concluded that § 39-71-402(1), MCA, applies under the specific facts of this case. We affirm the decision of the lower 

court. In doing so, we emphasize the nature of this action 

as a declaratory judgment only. It does not otherwise affect 

Mr. McGaha's entitlement to benefits or the calculation of 

these benefits. 

We Concur: / 

~~ug J5%& 

Dist ict Jud- Robe J. Boyd