Williams v. Petromark Drilling, LLC
299 Kan. 792
Kan.2014Background
- David Williams worked on remote, ever-changing drill sites for Petromark Drilling; travel between sites and from home to sites was intrinsic to the job.
- Petromark reimbursed the driller (Roach) for mileage and Roach typically drove crew members in his personal vehicle; crew members were not paid for travel time.
- On the day of the accident, Williams rode home as a passenger with co-worker LaMaster (instead of with Roach) with Roach's prior approval; Roach did not direct their route.
- A partially inflated tire on LaMaster’s car blew out on the drive home, the car rolled, and Williams was injured.
- The ALJ denied workers' compensation (injury not in course of employment); the Board reversed and awarded benefits, finding travel was integral to Williams' employment; the Court of Appeals reversed the Board, applying the "going and coming" rule.
- The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed whether the undisputed facts supported only one legal conclusion or whether substantial competent evidence supported the Board's factual finding that the injury arose out of employment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether injury arose out of and in the course of employment (going-and-coming rule) | Travel between sites is inherent to Williams' job; accident occurred during travel integral to employment so compensable | Williams was on a personal trip home (rode with LaMaster for convenience); not furthering employer's interests, so barred by going-and-coming rule | Reversed Court of Appeals; Board's finding that travel was intrinsic to employment is supported by substantial competent evidence and must be upheld |
| Proper standard of review for undisputed facts | Board's factual determination entitled to deference if supported by substantial evidence | Court of Appeals treated undisputed facts as supporting only one legal outcome and reversed as matter of law | Court must not reweigh evidence; where evidence is susceptible to more than one factual finding, agency finding stands if supported by substantial competent evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Douglas v. Ad Astra Information Systems, 296 Kan. 552 (discusses that whether accident arose in course of employment is generally a factual question)
- Scott v. Hughes, 294 Kan. 403 (standards for appellate review of agency factual findings)
- Redd v. Kansas Truck Center, 291 Kan. 176 (procedural requirements for reviewing agency factual determinations)
- Williams v. Petromark Drilling, 49 Kan. App. 2d 24 (Court of Appeals decision reversing Board on going-and-coming rule)