No. 13548
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
1977
JOANN HAGERPWN ,
Claimant and Appellant,
GALEN STATE HOSPITAL, Employer
and STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE
FUND, Insurer,
Defendants and Respondents.
Appeal from: Workers' Compensation Court
Honorable William E. Hunt, Judge presiding.
Counsel of Record:
For Appellant:
Scanlon and Connors, Anaconda, Montana
Jack Scanlon argued, Anaconda, Montana
For Respondents:
Andrew J. Utick argued, Helena, Montana
Submitted: September 27, 1977
Decided: OCT 2 5 1 n
9
Filed : jc 1 & 3 !!dl1
M r . J u s t i c e John Conway H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of
t h e Court:
T h i s a p p e a l a r i s e s from f i n d i n g s of f a c t , c o n c l u s i o n s
o f law and judgment of t h e workers' compensation c o u r t .
Two i s s u e s a r e p r e s e n t e d f o r t h i s C o u r t ' s c o n s i d e r a t i o n :
1. Did t h e workers' compensation c o u r t e r r i n f a i l i n g
t o f i n d t h e claimant provided a r e a s o n a b l e immediate economic
b e n e f i t t o t h e employer i n n e c e s s a r i l y having t o commute t o
and from work, a d i s t a n c e of 25 m i l e s a t h e r own expense?
2. Was t h e c l a i m a n t a c t i n g w i t h i n t h e scope of employ-
ment i n commuting t o and from work a t h e r own expense when no
r e s i d e n t i a l f a c i l i t i e s a r e a v a i l a b l e t o employees a t t h e
employer's p l a c e of employment?
Claimant Joann Hagerman, a n u r s e s ' a i d e a t Galen S t a t e
H o s p i t a l , was i n j u r e d i n an automobile a c c i d e n t on h e r way t o
work on March 24, 1975. Claimant l i v e d i n Anaconda, Montana
some 12 112 m i l e s from t h e h o s p i t a l and commuted d a i l y t o
and from work. She a l l e g e d t h e r e was inadequate housing a t
t h e h o s p i t a l t o cover employees and l i v i n g away from t h e
i n s t i t u t i o n was a n e c e s s i t y . Out of some 304 employees,
only 30 l i v e a t t h e h o s p i t a l complex and t h e r e s t l i v e i n
t h e Anaconda, B u t t e and Deer Lodge a r e a s .
A t t h e time of t h e a c c i d e n t t h e r e was no union c o n t r a c t
p r o v i s i o n f o r paying employees t r a v e l pay, n o r was t h e r e any
mass t r a n s i t system f o r t h e employees. Most employees e i t h e r
drove t o work o r p a r t i c i p a t e d i n c a r p o o l s . The only pro-
v i s i o n i n t h e employees' c o n t r a c t f o r t r a v e l pay was f o r an
emergency ' ' c a l l out". Claimant was n o t on a " c a l l out" on
t h e day of t h e a c c i d e n t . I t was a r o u t i n e workday.
'The i s s u e s on a p p e a l a r e d i r e c t e d a t whether t h e
i n j u r i e s s u s t a i n e d by c l a i m a n t i n t h e a c c i d e n t a r e com-
p r n s a b l e by reason of h e r employment, e n t i t l i n g h e r t o
workers' compensation b e n e f i t s ?
Claimant a r g u e s McMillen v. McKee and Company, 166
Mont. A00, 533 P.2d 1095 (1975); E l l i n g s o n v . C r i c k Co.,
Lb6 Mont. 431, 533 P.2d 1100 (1975); and Guarascio v .
I n d u s t r i a l Accident Board, 140 Mont. 497, 374 P.2d 8 4 . (1962);
are controlling. W disagree.
e Each of t h e c i t e d c a s e s t u r n e d
upon c o n t r a c t s t h a t gave t h e employee t r a v e l time i n one form
o r a n o t h e r , and t h e r e f o r e do n o t a p p l y . Here, c l a i m a n t had
no r i g h t t o any type of t r a v e l pay under h e r c o n t r a c t u a l
agreement except f o r emergency " c a l l out". She was n o t
performing work w i t h i n t h e c o u r s e of h e r employment when
injured.
Throughout t h e y e a r s t h i s S t a t e h a s had workers' com-
p e n s a t i o n , t h i s Court h a s c o n s i d e r e d a number of c a s e s where
i n j u r i e s were s u s t a i n e d going t o o r coming from work and h a s
found no recovery u n l e s s employee t r a v e l pay was covered under
t h e employment c o n t r a c t o r t h a t t r a v e l allowance was f o r
t r a v e l f o r t h e s p e c i a l b e n e f i t of t h e employer. Nicholson v.
Roundup Coal Min. Co., 79 Mont. 358, 257 P. 270 (1927) ;
Herberson v . Great F a l l s Wood & Coal Co., 83 Mont. 527, 273
P. 294 (1929); Landeen v . Toole County R e f i n i n g Co., 85 Mont.
41, 277 P. 615 (1929); Murray H o s p i t a l v. Angrove, 92 Mont.
101, 10 P.2d 577 (1932); G r i f f i n v . I n d u s t r i a l Acc. Fund, 1 1
1
Mont. 110, 106 P.2d 346 (1940); McMillen v. McKee and Company,
supra ; Guarascio v . I n d . Acc . Bd . , s u p r a .
Unless t r a n s p o r t a t i o n i s made a p a r t of t h e employment
c o n t r a c t o r t r a v e l t o and from work i s recognized by l e g i s -
l a t i v e enactment o r c o n t r a c t , any i n j u r i e s s u f f e r e d i n such
r r a v e l a r e o u t s i d e t h e c o u r s e and scope of t h e employment.
The d e c i s i o n of t h e workers' compensation c o u r t i s
affirmed.
~Jstice
/
W Concur:
e
~ h x Justice
f