CO Code § 8-41-204 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 8 - Labor and Industry|Article 41 - Coverage and Liability|Part 2 - Coverage|§ 8-41-204. Injury Outside of State - Benefits in Accordance With State Law

 If an employee who has been hired or is regularly employed in this state receives personal injuries in an accident or an occupational disease arising out of and in the course of such employment outside of this state, the employee, or such employee's dependents in case of death, shall be entitled to compensation according to the law of this state. This provision shall apply only to those injuries received by the employee within six months after leaving this state, unless, prior to the expiration of such six-month period, the employer has filed with the division notice that the employer has elected to extend such coverage for a greater period of time.   History. Source: L. 90: Entire article R&RE, p. 478, § 1, effective July 1.    Editor's note:   This section is similar to former § 8-46-204 as it existed prior to 1990.   ANNOTATION   Law reviews. For note, “The Conflicts Problem as Applied to Workmen's Compensation in Colorado”, see 22 Rocky Mt. L. Rev. 77 (1949).   Annotator's note. Since § 8-41-204 is similar to § 8-46-204 as it existed prior to the 1990 repeal and reenactment of the “Worker's Compensation Act of Colorado”, articles 40 to 47 of this title, relevant cases construing that provision have been included in the annotations to this section.   This section gives an employee outside of this state the right to remain protected by the Colorado insurance coverage, subject, however, to the second condition in § 8-46-202 , and if that condition does not exist, the whole act becomes inoperative. Frankel Carbon & Ribbon Co. v. Aaron, 113 Colo. 429 , 158 P.2d 929 (1945).   Section extends protection of compensation act. The requirements of § 8-46-202 cannot be fulfilled in a short period of time and afford no protection to an employee who must be sent out of the state on little if any advance notice. This section was intended to bridge the gap between and extend the protection of the compensation act to employees injured while employed out of the state within the six-month period. State Comp. Ins. Fund v. Howington, 133 Colo. 583 , 298 P.2d 963 (1956).   And the six-month limitation period commences to run from the date of departure following the most recent assignment to the state. Employers' Liab. Assurance Corp. v. Indus. Comm'n, 147 Colo. 309 , 363 P.2d 646 (1961).   An employee who is hired in Colorado and receives personal injuries outside of the state in an accident arising out of the employment is entitled to compensation only if the employee received the injuries within six months after leaving the state. Where employee was hired or employed in Colorado but was never physically present in Colorado, the employee is not entitled to compensation. Hathaway Lighting, Inc. v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office, 143 P.3d 1187 (Colo. App. 2006).   There are three requirements, any two of which when met can qualify an employee or his dependents for compensation under this section where the injury or death occurs outside of the state. The requirements are: A contract of employment created in the state, employment in the state under a contract created outside the state, and substantial employment in the state. If any two of these conditions are met, it makes no difference that the employee is not a resident of the state or is killed outside the state provided other statutory time limits on out-of-state employment are met. RCS Lumber Co. v. Worthy, 149 Colo. 537 , 369 P.2d 985 (1962).   And claimants have the burden of proving a Colorado employment contract. RCS Lumber Co. v. Worthy, 149 Colo. 537 , 369 P.2d 985 (1962).   The place of employment under this section is not expressly limited to the state. Denver Truck Exch. v. Perryman, 134 Colo. 586 , 307 P.2d 805 (1957).   Panel did not err in concluding that Colorado had jurisdiction over workers' compensation claim where contract for hire took place in Colorado for a job in Wyoming even though the claimant could reject the offer and the employer could reject the claimant when he arrived at the job site. By the time the claimant had agreed to report and departed from his home for the job site, the fundamental elements of the contract were present. Moorhead Mach. & Boiler v. Del Valle, 934 P.2d 861 (Colo. App. 1996).   Applied in Gardner Motor Co. v. Feistel, 160 Colo. 135 , 414 P.2d 915 (1966); Loffland Bros. v. Baca, 651 P.2d 431 (Colo. App. 1982).