Kelly v. Blue Ribbon Linen Supply, Inc., 360 P.3d 333

Barbara Kelly, an employee of Blue Ribbon Linen, was receiving workers’ compensation benefits for a prior work injury.
Surety (Idaho State Insurance Fund) scheduled an independent medical evaluation (IME) with Dr. Friedman in Post Falls, ~125 miles from Kelly’s workplace; Kelly was required to attend under Idaho Code §72-433 or risk suspension of benefits.
Kelly traveled to the IME on November 15, 2013, and while returning home that day her vehicle was struck in a head-on collision in snowy conditions; she suffered severe lower-extremity injuries and prolonged disability.
Parties submitted stipulated facts and the Industrial Commission denied compensability, treating the collision as an intervening, independent proximate cause under Kiger.
The Idaho Supreme Court reversed, holding the trip fell within exceptions to the coming-and-going rule (special errand / traveling employee) because the IME was employer-/surety-directed and undertaken for the employer’s benefit.
Case remanded for further proceedings; costs awarded to Kelly.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Kelly’s post-IME automobile injuries "arose out of and in the course of" employment	Kelly: IME attendance was required by surety/employer under statute; trip was for employer’s benefit (special errand / traveling employee) so injury is compensable	Surety/Commission: Collision was an intervening, independent proximate cause (Kiger); trip was personal travel and not within scope of employment	Held: Compensable. Court applied special-errand and traveling-employee exceptions; causal link to employment sufficient
Applicability of Kiger precedent	Kelly: Kiger is distinguishable because Kiger’s trip was voluntary for treatment, not mandatory at employer/surety direction	Surety: Kiger controls; subsequent collision is proximate cause breaking causal chain	Held: Kiger not controlling; distinction (mandatory IME under §72-433) defeats strict Kiger rule
Whether question is law or fact (standard of review)	Kelly: Stipulated facts leave legal question for court	Blue Ribbon: Argued factual question	Held: With stipulated facts, issue is legal and reviewed de novo
Duty to include referee’s recommended decision in record / Commission practice (concurrence)	N/A (concern raised by concurrence)	N/A	Concurring opinion: Commission should include referee’s recommended decision in record and explain departures from it; administrative practice criticized

Kiger v. Idaho Corp., 85 Idaho 424, 380 P.2d 208 (holding that an intervening independent cause may become the proximate cause)
Trapp v. Sagle Vol. Fire Dept., 122 Idaho 655, 837 P.2d 781 (special-errand exception applied where employer requested training travel)
Cheung v. Wasatch Elec., 136 Idaho 895, 42 P.3d 688 (traveling-employee doctrine covers employees required to travel away from normal workplace)
Hamilton v. Alpha Servs., LLC, 158 Idaho 683, 351 P.3d 611 (two-pronged test: injury must arise out of and in the course of employment)
Dinius v. Loving Care & More, Inc., 133 Idaho 572, 990 P.2d 738 (definitions: "out of" refers to origin/causal connection; "in the course of" refers to time/place/circumstances)
Gage v. Express Pers., 135 Idaho 250, 16 P.3d 926 (where facts are undisputed and permit only one inference, compensability is a question of law)