(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent. This case requires us to consider the relationship of two provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Act, Minn.Stat. § 176.011, subd. 16, which provides coverage for injuries sustained by an employee during transportation to and from the place of employment, if that transportation is regularly furnished by the employer, and Minn.Stat. § 176.021, subd. 9, which precludes coverage for injuries incurred while participating in a voluntary recreation program sponsored by the employer.
As a general rule, an injury occurring on the employer’s premises while the employee *233is going to and from work is compensable, see Starrett v. Pier Foundry, 488 N.W.2d 273 (Minn.1992); but if the injury occurs away from the employer’s premises, it is not compensable, subject to several exceptions. See Gibberd by Gibberd v. Control Data Corp., 424 N.W.2d 776 (Minn.1988). Consequently, the journey to and from work is normally not covered. Raymond v. Osseo/Brooklyn School Bus Co., 463 N.W.2d 510, 511 (Minn.1990).
An exception to the exclusion from coverage of the going and coming journey is provided at Minn.Stat. § 176.011, subd. 16 (1994):
Where the employer regularly furnished transportation to employees to and from the place of employment such employees are subject to this chapter while being so transported * * *.
“Accordingly, injuries sustained while traveling to or from work in a vehicle furnished by the employer are compensable if the transportation is regularly furnished and under the employer’s control.” Raymond, supra (citing Lehn v. Kladt, 312 Minn. 557, 250 N.W.2d 846 (1977)). See also, Gene P. Bradt, An Examination of the “Arising Out Of’ and the “In the Course Of’ Requirements Under the Minnesota Workers’ Compensation Law, 6 Wm. Mitchell L.Rev. 533, 553-57 (1980).
In contrast, as the employer argues, there is a specific statutory exclusion for injuries incurred while participating in voluntary recreational programs sponsored by the employer. In this case there is no dispute that the exercise program from which relator was being transported falls within the ambit of the statute. The question, then, is whether injuries occurred during transportation to the recreational activity, admittedly furnished by the employer, come within the provision providing coverage or within the provision excluding coverage. I conclude that the sounder position is that of the Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals. By enacting Minn.Stat. § 176.021, subd. 9, the legislature concluded that the benefits of encouraging employers to offer voluntary wellness programs outweigh the need to provide Workers’ Compensation Act coverage for injuries incurred in such programs. To refuse to extend the statutory exemption to transportation activities associated with the voluntary wellness programs appears to me to be inconsistent with that legislative intent. Accordingly, I would affirm the Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals.
TOMLJANOVICH, Justice. I join the dissent of Justice Gardebring.