Craig v. VAL ENERGY, INC.
274 P.3d 650
Kan. Ct. App.2012Background
- Craig, a driller for Val Energy, was responsible for transporting his crew to the oil rig site and used his personal vehicle for travel reimbursement.
- He was reimbursed for mileage and received per diem; he would not have been hired without the ability to drive and transport his crew.
- On July 27, 2007, Craig's crew travel and shop-related work occurred at Val Energy's shop due to a temporary equipment issue.
- Craig was injured while returning home from the shop, after performing temporary work duties away from the usual drill site.
- The ALJ ruled the injury did not arise out of or in the course of employment under the going-and-coming rule; the Board reversed that determination.
- The Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the inherent travel consideration did not negate coverage and that the going-and-coming rule did not bar Craig's claim under the facts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether inherent travel applies under 44-508(f). | Craig's travel was integral to his job; transport of crew and travel reimbursements show employment-related risk. | Going-and-coming rule bars coverage unless an explicit statutory exception applies. | Inherent travel is consistent with statute; the rule does not bar coverage here. |
| Whether the going-and-coming rule barred Craig's claim. | Travel to and from the temporary shop was part of job duties and benefits; thus not barred. | Craig was returning home from work, outside employment duties, triggering the rule. | The board did not err; going-and-coming rule did not bar the claim. |
| What governs review of the Board's interpretation of 44-508(f). | Board properly applied the intrinsic travel concept. | Statutory text should limit or override any judicially created interpretations | Court conducts de novo review of statutory interpretation; affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Messenger v. Sage Drilling Co., 9 Kan. App. 2d 435 (1984) (factors for going-and-coming applicability)
- Sumner v. Meier's Ready Mix, Inc., 282 Kan. 283 (2006) (travel as intrinsic employment element when applicable)
- Butera v. Fluor Daniel Constr. Corp., 28 Kan. App. 2d 542 (2001) (long-distance travel and employer reimbursement impact)
- Bergstrom v. Spears Manufacturing Co., 289 Kan. 605 (2009) (statutory interpretation of 44-508(f) governing inherent travel)
- Estate of Soupene v. Lignitz, 265 Kan. 217 (1998) (outlines going-and-coming framework and employment duties)
- Bell v. Allison Drilling Co., 175 Kan. 441 (1953) (early framework for travel-related compensation)
- Blair v. Shaw, 171 Kan. 524 (1951) (early travel and employment relationship considerations)
- Halford v. Nowak Construction Co., 39 Kan. App. 2d 935 (2008) (concurring view on intrinsic travel and employment duties)