Opinion ID: 1156976
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Did the Board Apply a Correct Deviation Exception to Coverage under the Act for Travel in Order to Receive Medical Treatment of Work-related Injuries?

Text: The Board found that Adams' trip to Anchorage was a dual purpose trip under Anchorage Roofing Co., Inc. v. Gonzales, 507 P.2d 501, 504 (Alaska 1973). The Board found that the trip was not personal under the analysis of Anchorage Roofing, and therefore concluded that it would ordinarily be compensable. However, the board concluded that the five-day delay represented a non-compensable deviation from an otherwise compensable trip. In reaching this conclusion the board reasoned: that the allowable passage of time between the medical treatment and the return trip [can]not be completely left open-ended. This concern is arguably more critical in medical treatment cases since, unlike business travel, medical treatment travel is ordinarily done without the knowledge of the employer. Our Act permits the employee to choose the medical care provider and the time of treatment. The Board believes some restriction on the time within which the trip must be completed if the trip is to be covered is therefore necessary to limit the employers risk. The cases cited by Professor Larson generally involve delays of hours rather than days. However, the Board believes that Alaska's uniqueness must be recognized by a more liberal standard. The Board believes that a serviceable standard must not be tied to a particular number of hours, or even days, due to differences in distances, weather, and available transportation. The Board believes, therefore, that a dual-purpose medical treatment return trip must be undertaken as soon as reasonably possible in order to be covered. The superior court reversed, contending that the board misapplied Anchorage Roofing by not considering whether the delay increased the risk of an accident. We disagree and affirm the judgment of the board. In Anchorage Roofing, the court set out a multi-part balancing test to determine whether a personal deviation from a covered business trip renders it noncompensable. As the court noted: there is the need ... to balance a variety of factors such as the geographic and durational magnitude of the deviation in relation to the overall trip, past authorization or toleration of similar deviations, the general latitude afforded the employee in carrying out his job, and any risks created by the deviation which are causally related to the accident. 507 P.2d at 507 (footnote omitted). We do not believe that the board misapplied the Anchorage Roofing test in this case. Considering the record as a whole, it is clear that Adams' five-day delay in Anchorage did not increase the risks involved in his homeward trip. However, at some point the length of an employee's delay in returning home does function to destroy the trip's work connection regardless of whether it increases or lessens the risk of the return journey. As Professor Larson notes, An employee who has the right to have his homeward journey covered cannot, so to speak, put the right in the bank indefinitely and cash it at whatever future time suits his convenience. 1 A. Larson, The Law of Workmen's Compensation § 19.29, at 4-362, 4-370 (1985). We believe that the Board was correct in determining that Adams' five-day delay in returning home ended the compensability of his return trip. B. Did the Board Err in Concluding that Adams' Work-Related Disability Ended in Late March 1986?