No. 11-109554
(Mo. Lab. & Indust. Rel. Comm’n. Feb. 5, 2019)
Full Opinion: Milton Wilson v. Liquid Solutions
Corporation
Code(s): C042 - Jurisdiction
Factual
Background:
This
case presents a jurisdiction question. The employee allegedly developed
bilateral carpal and cubital tunnel syndrome due to his repetitive work,
dumping grease after driving to various dump sites. There was no evidence
presented regarding employment contract formation, or that the occupational
disease was contracted in MO. So, jurisdiction was dependent on whether or not
the employment was “principally localized” in Missouri for the 13 weeks
preceding the work injury.
ALJ Decision:
The
term “principally localized” is not defined by the Supreme Court or Court of
Appeals. The claimant’s testimony reflected that he submitted paperwork in
Kansas, and received job assignments in Kansas, which required him to pick up
and drop off his trucks in Kansas every day. Further, the claimant’s deposition
testimony did not support that most of his driving was in Missouri, as he
frequently drove routes in Arkansas, Kansas, and sometimes Nebraska.
There can only be one “principal” employment location, and the employee failed to prove that his employment was “principally localized” in Missouri.
Analysis/Holding:
- The
Commission upholds the ALJ’s decision, actually citing sections of the
Employment Security Law Statute:
- Where the work day starts and ends.
- Whether the employer has an office in the state claimed.
- Whether the duties performed in a state are merely incidental to the position.
- Where does the employee receive orders, pay, and supervision.
- If the employee's duties require travel, does the evidence establish that most miles are within a certain state.
- Is there a base of operations in the claimed state.
Employee did not show that the majority of his time, miles, days, or work duties were spent in Missouri or that the employer was principally operating its business in Missouri, as opposed to the several other states where employee drove to perform services.
The Takeaway:
Missouri's
legislature has not adopted this simple test for determining localization of a business for coverage under the statute. The best approach may be to review the various factors stated above, for a more refined definition of "principally localized."