Does the continuous coverage rule protect traveling employees in Utah? Buczynski v. Industrial Comm. Explained

The Utah Court of Appeals in Buczynski v. Industrial Commission established important precedent for workers’ compensation coverage of traveling employees, adopting the continuous coverage rule while defining its limits.

Background and Facts

Patricia Buczynski, an assistant psychology professor at Utah State University, was required to present scholarly papers at professional conferences. She traveled to Baltimore for an American Association for Counseling and Development convention, with her attendance pre-approved and expenses reimbursed by the university. However, instead of traveling directly to Baltimore, Buczynski and her companion flew to Washington D.C. and drove 150 miles in the opposite direction to McGaheysville, Virginia, arriving two and one-half days before the convention. While exiting a hotel hot tub at the Massanutten Hotel, she slipped on water runoff and injured her knee.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether Buczynski’s injury arose out of and in the course of employment under Utah Code Ann. § 35-1-45, specifically whether the continuous coverage rule applied to traveling employees and, if so, whether her McGaheysville stay constituted a distinct departure on a personal errand that would defeat coverage.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court explicitly adopted the continuous coverage rule for Utah, recognizing that traveling employees remain within the course of employment continuously during business trips, except when making distinct departures on personal errands. The court found this rule consistent with Utah precedent, particularly Martinson v. W-M Insurance Agency, which applied a “paramount or predominant motivation and purpose” test. However, applying the rule to Buczynski’s facts, the court affirmed the Industrial Commission’s denial. The evidence showed Buczynski’s McGaheysville stay involved primarily personal activities—visiting friends, touring a winery, and sightseeing—with only minimal work-related tasks. Her employer was unaware of the detour, she didn’t seek reimbursement for McGaheysville expenses, and her testimony lacked credibility.

Practice Implications

This decision provides crucial guidance for Utah practitioners representing traveling employees in workers’ compensation cases. While the continuous coverage rule offers broad protection, practitioners must carefully document that any extended stays or detours serve legitimate business purposes. Personal activities that constitute “distinct departures” will defeat coverage, even if some incidental work occurs during the personal time. The court’s emphasis on credibility also highlights the importance of honest, consistent testimony in workers’ compensation proceedings.