Court Summaries
| Publication year | 2013 |
| Pages | 46 |
| Citation | Vol. 36 No. 1 Pg. 46 |
P. Craig Silva, Williams, Porter, Day & Neville P.C.
IN THE MATTER OF THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION Claim of: Gordon R. Bilyeu v. State of Wyoming, ex rel., Wyoming Workers' Safety and Compensation Division 2012 WY 141 November 2, 2012 S-12-0051
This case deals with whether or not a worker injured while traveling to work was eligible for workers' compensation benefits for injuries sustained en route. Gordon R. Bilyeu was injured in an accident while driving his motorcycle to work. He filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits claiming that his injuries were covered because his employer reimbursed his travel expenses. The Workers' Compensation Division denied the claim. The Office of Administrative Hearings denied the claim. Both the District Court and the Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of the Division and the OAH.
Mr. Bilyeu worked as a boilermaker for Babcock & Wilcox Construction for 30 years. In June 2010, he was driving his motorcycle to work from his home in Gillette, Wyoming, when he was involved in an automobile accident. His injuries included a broken ankle, broken ribs, a broken collarbone, a collapsed lung, and numerous lacerations.
Wyo. Stat. § 27-l4-102(a)(xi)(D) provides that an "injury" for purposes of workers' compensation does not include any injury "sustained during travel to or from employment unless the employee is reimbursed for travel expenses or is transported by a vehicle of the employer." Mr. Bilyeu argued that he received a per diem of $60 per day while working for the employer, and this per diem should amount to reimbursement for travel. The Division did not agree. Instead, the Division argued that the per diem had no relationship to actual travel expenses, but was instead tied to the number of hours Mr. Bilyeu actually worked and was intended to be additional compensation, as negotiated by Mr. Bilyeu's union.
The Division's argument was supported by the record, which included the union contract that provided that "per diem" payments did not include pay for travel or mileage, even though the contract included a term stating that the per diem amount was based upon the number of miles an employee travelled from his residence to the job site. Because the contract language appeared ambiguous, the Division called the project manager to testify. The manager testified that the per diem paid to employees on the project was an allowance for living expenses and did not include any pay for travel time or mileage. He also testified that the per diem was based on the union contract's language regarding mileage to and from the job site. Again, the Division found an ambiguity. The Wyoming Supreme Court recognized this finding, commenting "[t]he most that can be said of this evidence is that it did not overwhelmingly support the position of either Mr. Bilyeu or the Division."
Because of this ambiguous language, the Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed the lower tribunal decisions that Mr. Bilyeu did not meet his burden of proof as to whether the employer was reimbursing for travel expenses.
Katrina Lucero by and through their guardian Katrina Lucero v. Nanette Holbrook 2012 WY 152 November 30, 2012 S-12-0062
The issue in this case is whether there is an applicable duty under a statute that prohibited leaving ones vehicle running unattended. Nanette Holbrook left her car unattended with the motor running in her private driveway while she briefly returned to her home to retrieve her pocket book. In the meantime, Colby Emms stole her car and eventually was in a high-speed chase with law enforcement. During the chase, he collided with a vehicle driven by Katrina Lucero, who had her two children in the car. Ms. Lucero filed suit against Ms. Holbrook on behalf of her children. The sole issue in the case was whether Nanette Holbrook owed a duty of care to the general public by leaving her car running with the keys in the ignition and unlocked. The District Court granted summary judgment for the defendant on the issue, and the Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed. In the analysis, the Wyoming Supreme Court first recognized that "[a] duty may arise based upon the existence of a contract, a statute, . . .common law, or when the relationship of the parties is such that the law imposes an obligation on the defendant to...
To continue reading
Request your trial