Opinion ID: 1530332
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: IAB Articulated Applicable Legal Standard

Text: The State's third argument is that the IAB did not set forth the applicable legal standard upon which its decision was based. That argument is contradicted by the record. The IAB explicitly stated that it was evaluating Dalton's claim under the Workers' Compensation Act, [11] and that it resolved the claim under the applicable totality of the circumstances test. [12] The record reflects that the IAB supported its conclusion that Dalton had sustained a work-related injury with specific factual findings and stated that [b]ased on the factual circumstances viewed in totality and giving liberal construction to the Workers' Compensation Act, the Board finds Claimant has met his burden of proof in this matter. The analysis in the IAB's decision supports the Superior Court's conclusion that the IAB was relying on the factors set forth in Larson's treatise for determining whether a non-sponsored recreational activity was with the course of employment. We agree.