4-503-762 (2002). LARRY CLEMONSON (Final Order).

• Case Date: November 20, 2002
• Court: Colorado

Colorado Workers Compensation 2002. 4-503-762 (2002). LARRY CLEMONSON (Final Order) INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS OFFICEIN THE MATTER OF THE CLAIM OF LARRY CLEMONSON, Claimant , v. LOVERN'S PAINTING, Employer, and TRUCK INSURANCE EXCHANGE, Insurer, Respondents.W. C. No. 4-503-762FINAL ORDER The respondents seek review of an order of Administrative Law Judge Mattoon (ALJ) which determined the claimant suffered compensable injuries and awarded workers' compensation benefits. The respondents contend the ALJ erroneously found the injuries arose out of the employment. We agree and, therefore, reverse. An injury "arises out of and in the course of" employment, and is therefore compensable under the Workers' Compensation Act, when it occurs during an activity which is sufficiently connected to the conditions and circumstances under which the employee usually performs his or her job functions. Price v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 919 P.d. 207 (Colo. 1996). The "arising out of" requirement is met when the origins of the injury are work-related, and the injury is sufficiently related to the work to be considered part of the employee's service to the employer. General Cable Co. v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 878 P.2d. 118 (Colo. App. 1994). Injuries sustained by employees going to and from work are usually not compensable. Berry's Coffee Shop, Inc. v. Palomba, 161 Colo. 369, 423 P.2d 212 (Colo. 1967). However, there is an exception when "special circumstances" create a causal relationship between the employment and the travel beyond the sole fact of the employee's arrival at work. Madden v. Mountain West Fabricators, 977 P.2d 861 (Colo. 1999); Monolith Portland Cement v. Burak, 772 P.2d 688 (Colo. 1989). In Madden, the court listed four factors which are relevant in determining whether "special circumstances" have been established which create an exception to the "going to and coming from" rule. These factors are: 1) whether the travel occurred during work hours; 2) whether the travel occurred on or off the employer's premises; 3) whether the travel was contemplated by the employment contract; and 4) whether the obligations or conditions of employment created a "zone of special danger." 977 P.2d at 864. In so doing the court held the common link of examples involving the third variable is that travel is a "substantial...