Douglas v. Ad Astra Information Systems, LLC
293 P.3d 723
| Kan. | 2013Background
- Douglas sustained injuries while go-cart racing at a company-sponsored Sadler's event on November 3, 2006.
- Event was optional but employees testified they felt pressured to attend; some remained at work.
- Ad Astra paid wages during the event, funded the outing, and reserved a go-cart track at Sadler's for the employees.
- Douglas was injured during the team go-cart competition; he later required surgery and was found to have a 15% permanent impairment.
- The ALJ awarded workers compensation; Ad Astra appealed arguing the injury fell within the 44-508(f) recreational exclusion.
- The Board applied Larson’s factors to decide the event was not within the course of employment, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 44-508(f) should be interpreted by statutory criteria instead of Larson’s factors | Douglas argues the statute contains the exclusive test and Larson’s factors are inapplicable. | Ad Astra contends Larson’s factors properly aid understanding since the statute is undefined. | Board erred; statutory criteria control; remand to apply 44-508(f). |
| Whether the evidence supports a finding that Douglas had no duty to attend the event | Douglas contends there was some duty or coercive pressure to attend the event. | Ad Astra argues there was no mandatory attendance. | Remand to determine under 44-508(f) whether any duty to attend excludes coverage. |
| Whether the event qualifies as a recreational or social exclusion under 44-508(f) given the employer’s directed or instructed tasks | Douglas may have been instructed to participate in team-building activities. | Ad Astra argues the event was a gratitude/social gathering not mandated as part of normal duties. | Remand to assess the statutory criteria, including any employer instruction to perform tasks at the event. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hizey v. MCI, 39 Kan. App. 2d 609 (2008) (recreation-related injury considered in coverage context)
- State v. Sheldon, 290 Kan. 523 (2010) (common-meaning of words; recreational activity contexts)
- Schmidtlein Electric, Inc. v. Greathouse, 278 Kan. 810 (2005) (recreational/employee activities and employment relation considerations)
- Fort Hays St. Univ. v. University Ch., Am. Ass’n of Univ. Profs., 290 Kan. 446 (2010) (abrogation of operative construction doctrine; statutory interpretation)
- Douglas v. Ad Astra Information Systems, 42 Kan. App. 2d 441 (2009) (Court of Appeals applied Larson’s factors to 44-508(f))
- Titterington v. Brooke Insurance, 277 Kan. 888 (2004) (standard for whether injury arose out of and in the course of employment)
- Higgins v. Abilene Machine, Inc., 288 Kan. 359 (2009) (statutory interpretation in workers' compensation appeals)
- Padron v. Lopez, 289 Kan. 1089 (2009) (plain-language statutory interpretation principles)