419 P.3d 1
Kan.2018Background
- Atkins, a Webcon laborer on an out-of-town roofing crew, stayed at an employer-selected hotel in Enid, Oklahoma, while the crew worked a week-long shift; Webcon paid travel time, lodging, meals, and a per-night stipend.
- After a workday, Atkins and a coworker walked to a bar across the street from the Baymont Inn chosen by the employer; the coworker left earlier and Atkins remained drinking.
- At 2:20 a.m. while walking alone from the Ramada bar back to the Baymont, Atkins was struck by a drunk driver and suffered catastrophic injuries.
- Atkins applied for workers' compensation; an ALJ initially awarded benefits, concluding travel was intrinsic to employment and Atkins had assumed job duties when traveling to the out-of-town site.
- The Workers Compensation Board reversed, finding Atkins was a fixed-situs employee who was off duty when injured; the Court of Appeals affirmed; the Kansas Supreme Court granted review.
- The Supreme Court affirmed the Board, holding Atkins’ injuries did not arise out of and in the course of his employment because his late-night walk from a bar to his hotel was not fulfilling work duties or incidental to them.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Atkins’s injury "arose out of and in the course of employment" under the KWCA | Atkins: Travel to Enid was intrinsic to his job so he had assumed employment duties and was covered for injuries while traveling or staying in employer-selected lodging | Webcon: Atkins was off duty when injured (fixed-situs employee); his bar visit and midnight walk were social, not work-related, so going-and-coming exclusion applies | Court: Affirmed Board — Atkins was not performing or incidentally doing work when injured; going-and-coming exclusion inapplicable only because he was not "going to or coming from" work, and in any event injuries were not work-connected |
Key Cases Cited
- Scott v. Hughes, 294 Kan. 403 (discusses interpretation of "arising out of and in the course of employment" and review standards)
- Sumner v. Meier's Ready Mix, 282 Kan. 283 (defines "in the course of employment" — time, place, and activity incidental to duties)
- Bryant v. Midwest Staff Solutions, Inc., 292 Kan. 585 (focus on whether activity causing injury is connected to job performance)
- Williams v. Petromark Drilling, 299 Kan. 792 (addresses travel intrinsic to duties and compensability)