4-316-373 (1998). WILLIAM HOLLIS.

• Case Date: July 23, 1998
• Court: Colorado

Colorado Workers Compensation 1998. 4-316-373 (1998). WILLIAM HOLLIS INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS OFFICEIN THE MATTER OF THE CLAIM OF WILLIAM HOLLIS, Claimant, v. SUN MICROSYSTEMS, INC., Employer, and AMERICAN MOTORISTS INSURANCE COMPANY, Insurer, Respondents.W. C. No. 4-316-373 and 4-316-493FINAL ORDER The respondents seek review of a final order of Administrative Law Judge Wheelock (ALJ), which awarded temporary disability benefits and medical benefits. The respondents contend the ALJ erroneously determined that the claimant sustained a compensable injury while in travel status. The respondents further argue the ALJ committed several errors when ruling on evidentiary issues. We affirm. The ALJ found that the employer dispatched the claimant from Colorado Springs to Palo Alto, California, in April 1996. During the week ending Friday, April 26, the claimant attended a training course. The employer arranged for the claimant to stay the weekend so that he could attend a conference the following week. The employer paid for the claimant's lodging, meals, and a rental car. The ALJ credited the claimant's testimony that on the evening of April 26 he drove from Palo Alto to San Francisco to eat dinner on Fisherman's Wharf. The trip took approximately forty-five minutes. Once the claimant reached San Francisco, he noticed a bicycle race which was beginning near Market Street. The claimant wished to watch the race, and parked his car in an area described by the ALJ as the "red light district of San Francisco." After parking, the claimant browsed through some camera shops, entered the foyer of a burlesque theater, and took money out of an ATM machine. As the claimant was returning to his car to go to Fisherman's Wharf, he was mugged and injured. Under these circumstances, the ALJ concluded the claimant suffered a compensable injury arising out of and in the course of his employment. Specifically, the ALJ determined the claimant was in travel status, and that the claimant's journey to Fisherman's Wharf did not constitute a substantial "deviation" from the scope of employment. The ALJ explicitly rejected the respondents' assertion that the distance between Palo Alto and Fisherman's Wharf is so great that the claimant necessarily crossed the boundaries of his employment. The ALJ also concluded that the claimant's activities in the "red light district" were "reasonable and foreseeable," and did not constitute "a personal errand" sufficient to remove him from the scope of employment. In any event, the ALJ held that at the time of the mugging the claimant had returned to the scope of his employment because any personal errand had ended and the claimant was "on his...