Court Opinion

ID: 9851412
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:12:15.200672+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:55.618962
License: Public Domain

TURSI, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent.
The Industrial Commission reviewed the entire record and concluded that the hearing officer’s decision should be reversed because it was contrary to the weight of the evidence. Further, the Commission concluded that the hearing officer had erroneously applied the “going to and from work rule” to this claim. I agree with both conclusions.
Petitions to review the orders of a hearing officer are subject to § 8-53-111(7), C.R.S. (1984 Cum.Supp.). The sole restrictions in this section on the Commission’s power of review are that it shall limit its review to issues raised in the petition for review and that it shall not alter findings of evidentiary facts if they are supported by substantial evidence. Here, the Commission did not set aside any finding of evidentiary fact. The hearing officer made no finding concerning the credibility of claimant’s explanation of why he had filed the PIP claim; rather, he concluded that *58the filing of the PIP report apparently established that claimant was not within the scope of his employment. This conclusion is not binding upon the Industrial Commission. See Industrial Commission v. Jones, 688 P.2d 1116 (Colo.1984); Baca v. Helm, 682 P.2d 474 (Colo.1984).
The Commission concluded that the claimant was engaged in activities rising out of and in the course of his employment at the time of the accident and injury. Section 8-52-102(1), C.R.S. (1984 Cum. Supp.). The test it applied was whether the acts of the claimant, though partially for his personal benefit, also contained benefit for the employer in pursuit of the duties of employment. See Deterts v. Times Publishing Co., 38 Colo.App. 48, 552 P.2d 1033 (1976), and its progeny.
Here, it is not disputed that the claimant frequently returned to work after normal business hours. Further, the Commission found from undisputed evidence that the claimant was required to wear a beeper or pager, included with the vehicle, so that his subordinates could contact him; that he was going home from the inn to shower and change his clothes to go out again for purposes of his work for the employer; that he had worked for the employer at home after regular business hours on a regular basis, writing reports there, supervised employees from his home, and responded to their calls for assistance over the phone.
The factual situation in this case falls within the purview of the rule announced in Carlile Corp. v. Antaki, 162 Colo. 376, 426 P.2d 549 (1967). See also Denver School District No. 1 v. Industrial Commission, 196 Colo. 131, 581 P.2d 1162 (1978); Mineral County v. Industrial Commission, 649 P.2d 728 (Colo.App.1982); Loffland Brothers v. Baca, 651 P.2d 431 (Colo.App.1982). Since the Commission has broad discretion in assessing weight and sufficiency of evidence in determining whether a claimant has met his burden of establishing that his claim comes within the scope of his employment, I feel we must affirm the Commission’s opinion. Sena v. World of Sleep, Inc., 173 Colo. 348, 478 P.2d 671 (1970).
Therefore, I would affirm.