HAGERMAN v GALEN STATE HOSPITAL

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

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: Decided: Filed : jc 1 & 3 !!dl1 September 27, 1977 OCT 2 5 1 n 9 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 comp 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' comp 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. Roundup Coal Min. Co., Nicholson v. 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. 1 101, 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 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

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.