State v. DeSantis, N17A-02-007 ALR

Mark DeSantis, a DelDOT construction manager, regularly inspected nighttime roadway projects and sometimes worked overtime; he had an office in Bear, DE.
DeSantis was not paid for commuting time or mileage between home and work and was not permitted to take a State vehicle home.
On Oct. 16–17, 2014, after attending a professional association event he was not required to attend, DeSantis visited a Kirkwood Highway worksite late at night, left ~11:30–11:45 PM, and was injured in a car accident at 12:03 AM while driving home.
DeSantis filed for workers’ compensation; the Industrial Accident Board awarded benefits, finding the injury arose out of and in the course of employment via the “semi-fixed place of employment” exception and, alternatively, because the travel was “unusual, urgent, or risky.”
The State appealed; the Superior Court reviewed de novo legal questions and for substantial evidence as to factual findings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether injury arose out of and in the course of employment under Spellman contractual-first framework	DeSantis argued his late-site visit and resulting commute were work-related and compensable (semi-fixed place / exceptions)	State argued employment contract excluded compensation for commuting time, so injury not compensable	Court held Spellman requires first looking to the employment contract; because DeSantis was not compensated for commuting, inquiry should have ended for noncompensability
Whether Board properly applied the “semi-fixed place of employment” exception	DeSantis argued exception applied to his on-site presence and commute	State argued Board erred to invoke exceptions where contract terms resolved the issue	Court held Board erred to apply the exception as part of the contractual analysis when contract evidence was sufficient
Whether Board permissibly relied on “unusual, urgent, or risky” travel analysis	DeSantis (and Board) relied on this alternative to justify compensability	State argued Spellman does not authorize that analysis once contract resolves issue	Court held applying an “unusual, urgent, or risky” test was legal error under Spellman
Remedy: remand or affirm	DeSantis sought affirmation of award	State sought reversal	Court reversed Board decision and remanded for proceedings consistent with its opinion

Spellman v. Christiana Care Health Servs., 74 A.3d 619 (Del. 2013) (establishes contractual-first framework for determining whether travel is work-related)
Histed v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 621 A.2d 340 (Del. 1993) (articulates the going-and-coming rule)
Glanden v. Land Prep, Inc., 918 A.2d 1098 (Del. 2007) (standard of review on appeal from Industrial Accident Board)
Future Ford Sales, Inc. v. Public Serv. Comm’n, 654 A.2d 837 (Del. 1995) (remand principles and agency review standards)