Douglas v. Ad Astra Information Systems, LLC

296 Kan. 552 (2013) · Supreme Court of Kansas · February 8, 2013

Summary

The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed whether an employee’s injuries sustained while go-cart racing at an employer-sponsored event were excluded from workers compensation coverage under K.S.A. 2006 Supp. 44-508(f). The court held that the Workers Compensation Board improperly applied factors from a legal treatise instead of the statutory criteria concerning the employee’s duty to attend and performance of job-related tasks. The court reversed and remanded for the Board to apply the statutory standard.

Holdings

  1. The statutory criteria in K.S.A. 2006 Supp. 44-508(f), rather than judicially created or treatise-based factors, govern whether an injury sustained at a recreational or social event is excluded from workers compensation coverage.
  2. The Board erred by using the Larson's factors as the test for determining compensability under K.S.A. 2006 Supp. 44-508(f).
  3. The evidence supported a finding that Douglas was required to be in one of two places—at the Sadler's event or at the Ad Astra facility—so a conditional duty to attend the event could not satisfy the statutory requirement of no duty to attend.
  4. The case must be remanded to the Workers Compensation Board to apply the statutory criteria and make the necessary factual findings.
  5. The doctrine of operative construction is abandoned, abrogated, disallowed, disapproved, overruled, and no longer applicable in Kansas appeals.

Questions Presented

  1. What legal standard governs whether an injury at an employer-sponsored recreational or social event is excluded from workers compensation coverage under K.S.A. 2006 Supp. 44-508(f)?
  2. Did the Workers Compensation Board err by applying the factors from Larson's Workers' Compensation Law instead of the statutory criteria?
  3. Should the Supreme Court itself determine whether Douglas's injury was excluded, or should the matter be remanded for factual findings under the correct statutory standard?
  4. Should the doctrine of operative construction be retained in Kansas workers compensation appeals?

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded

Cases Cited (11)

  • Douglas v. Ad Astra Information Systems, 42 Kan. App. 2d 441, 213 P.3d 764 (2009)(reversed in part)
  • Hizey v. MCI, 39 Kan. App. 2d 609, 181 P.3d 583, rev. denied 286 Kan. 1177 (2008)(discussed)
  • Titterington v. Brooke Insurance, 277 Kan. 888, 896, 89 P.3d 643 (2004)(followed)
  • Unrah v. Purina Mills, 289 Kan. 1185, 1193, 221 P.3d 1130 (2009)(followed)
  • Higgins v. Abilene Machine, Inc., 288 Kan. 359, 361, 204 P.3d 1156 (2009)(followed)
  • Fort Hays St. Univ. v. University Ch., Am. Ass'n of Univ. Profs., 290 Kan. 446, 457, 228 P.3d 403 (2010)(followed)
  • Padron v. Lopez, 289 Kan. 1089, 1097, 220 P.3d 345 (2009)(followed)
  • Double M Construction v. Kansas Corporation Commission, 288 Kan. 268, 271-72, 202 P.3d 7 (2009)(followed)
  • State v. Sheldon, 290 Kan. 523, 526, 231 P.3d 573 (2010)(followed)
  • Schmidthen Electric, Inc. v. Greathouse, 278 Kan. 810, 822, 104 P.3d 378 (2005)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 11.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…