The employee appeals from the compensation judge’s determination that injuries sustained by the employee in a motor vehicle accident in Duluth, Minnesota, on October 24, 2011, did not arise out of or in the course and scope of his employment with the employer.  We affirm.

The facts in this case are largely undisputed.  The employer, W.L. Hall Company, is a construction company that specializes in the installation of framing and glass in commercial structures.  The employee, Douglas Walch, is a union glazier who has worked for the employer since 2008.  The employer contracts work at job sites throughout Minnesota and in part of North Dakota.  On out-of-town jobs, too distant to make the daily commute to and from their homes to the job site practical, the employees of W.L. Hall generally stay at lodgings near the job site during the work week.  After work is completed for the day, the employees have no job duties to perform for the employer and are free to do as they please with their time.  It is expected the employees will return home on the weekends.

For out-of-town jobs, pursuant to a union contract, the employer pays a $40 per diem for meals, partial mileage reimbursement for the first trip from the employee’s home to the job site and for the last trip home after the job is completed, and for lodging during the work week.  Prior to beginning a job, the employer negotiates job arrangements, i.e., how long the job is going to last, the hours and days of work, accommodations for the employees, ^[1] and so on.

In October 2011, the employee was assigned a job, with one other employee, to build a greenhouse on the roof of a building at St. Scholastica College in Duluth, Minnesota.  The employee’s home is in Anoka, Minnesota.  The drive to Duluth takes approximately two and a quarter hours.  The employer had pre-arranged lodging for the employees at a Comfort Inn located five to seven miles from the job site.  On this particular job, the employees worked ten-hour days, four days a week, Monday through Thursday, with three days off.  The job was expected to last about two months.

On the first day on the job, Monday, October 17, 2011, the employee traveled directly from Anoka, Minnesota, to the job site at St. Scholastica in Duluth.  He drove back to Anoka Thursday evening after completion of the work week.  On the second week of the job, the employee drove back up to Duluth after dinner on Sunday evening, October 23, 2011, and stayed at the Comfort Inn that night.  The lodging was paid for by the employer, but the employee did not receive any wages or per diem.^[2]  Both the employee and the employer’s General Manager testified the employee did not have to stay in Duluth at the Comfort Inn if he did not want to, but was free to drive from wherever he was staying as long as he was on the job site at the beginning of the work day at approximately 7:00 a.m.  (T. 41, 65-66.)  On Monday morning, October 24, 2011, the employee was involved in a motor vehicle accident while driving from the Comfort Inn to the job site in his personal vehicle, sustaining injuries to his spine and right wrist.  The employee did not perform any work for the employer on Sunday night or on Monday.

On March 22, 2012, the employee filed a claim petition seeking wage loss benefits and medical expenses.  The employer and insurer denied primary liability.  The case was heard by a compensation judge on November 6, 2012.  The judge found the employee’s injuries stemming from the motor vehicle accident on October 24, 2011, did not arise out of and in the course of his employment.  The employee appeals.

On appeal, the Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals must determine whether “the findings of fact and order [are] clearly erroneous and unsupported by substantial evidence in view of the entire record as submitted.”  Minn. Stat. § 176.421, subd. 1 (2012).  Substantial evidence supports the findings if, in the context of the entire record, “they are supported by evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate.”  Hengemuhle v. Long Prairie Jaycees, 358 N.W.2d 54, 59, 37 W.C.D. 235, 239 (Minn. 1984).  Where evidence conflicts or more than one inference may reasonably be drawn from the evidence, the findings are to be affirmed.  Id. at 60, 37 W.C.D. at 240.  Similarly, findings of fact should not be disturbed, even though the reviewing court might disagree with them, “unless they are clearly erroneous in the sense that they are manifestly contrary to the weight of evidence or not reasonably supported by the evidence as a whole.”  Northern States Power Co. v. Lyon Food Prods., Inc., 304 Minn. 196, 201, 229 N.W.2d 521, 524 (1975).

“[A] decision which rests upon the application of a statute or rule to essentially undisputed facts generally involves a question of law which [the Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals] may consider de novo.”  Krovchuck v. Koch Oil Refinery, 48 W.C.D. 607, 608 (W.C.C.A. 1993).

Minnesota Statutes § 176.011, subd. 16, provides that workers’ compensation coverage extends only to personal injuries which occur while the employee “is engaged in, on, or about the premises where the employee’s services require the employee’s presence as part of that service at the time of the injury and during the hours of that service.”  For that reason, injuries sustained by an employee away from the employer’s premises before or after his hours of work - - such as injuries suffered while going to or coming from the place where the employee’s work duties are performed - - are generally not compensable.  Swanson v. Fairway Foods, 439 N.W.2d 722, 41 W.C.D. 1010 (Minn. 1989).  The Supreme Court explained that

The employee argues that he falls within the exception for a “traveling employee” and, as such, was covered portal to portal from the time he left home until he returned home.  This exception has been applied to traveling salesmen, long-distance bus drivers, over-the-road truckers, and the like whose services for the employer require driving or traveling.  See, e.g., Voight v. Rettinger Transp., Inc., 306 N.W.2d 133, 33 W.C.D. 625 (Minn. 1981); Snyder v. General Paper Corp., 277 Minn. 376, 152 N.W.2d 743, 24 W.C.D. 255 (1967).  As explained by the Supreme Court:

Relying on the Supreme Court’s decisions in Cavilla and Bonfig v. Megarry Bros., Inc., 294 Minn. 180, 199 N.W.2d 796, 26 W.C.D. 321 (1972) and this court’s decision in Matetich v. Ulland Bros., 48 W.C.D. 350 (W.C.C.A. 1993), the compensation judge concluded the employee was not a traveling employee, and that an injury sustained by a construction worker while driving from his motel lodging to a fixed out-of-town job site with fixed hours of work, does not arise out of and in the course of employment.

In Cavilla v. Northern States Power, the Supreme Court reversed an award of compensation by the Industrial Commission, specifically rejecting the commission’s finding that the employee was a traveling employee.  Mr. Cavilla lived in Minneapolis and was sent by his employer to work at a substation in Tracy, Minnesota, about 160 miles away.  The job was expected to last several weeks.  The employees worked 8 hours a day, five days a week, Monday to Friday.  On out-of-town jobs, pursuant to a union contract, the employer paid a sum for living expenses, including meals and lodging, that was computed over seven days based on length of service.  On the weekends, the employees often drove home in their own vehicles.  The employee started work on the job on Monday, November 4.  He was killed in a collision on the way home to Minneapolis after work on Friday evening, November 8.

The court stated the undisputed evidence was that the place of employment was the employer’s substation in Tracy, the hours of service were Monday through Friday, eight hours per day, beginning at approximately 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 or 5:00 p.m., and after completion of the work day, the employees were free to spend their time as they saw fit.  The court concluded the employee’s death did not arise out of the employment because it occurred at a place other than the premises where the employee’s services were being performed and did not arise in the course of the employment because it did not occur during the hours of service.  The court held that where an employee’s services are required to be performed away from home at a specified place and during specified hours, an injury sustained on a week-end trip home after completion of the work week and while the employee is not performing work for the employer, does not arise out of and in the course of employment.  Cavilla, 6 N.W.2d at 816, 12 W.C.D. at 435-36.^[3]

The employer in Bonfig v. Megarry Bros. was engaged in the business of highway construction.  The employee resided in Freeport, Minnesota, and was working on a project near Grand Marais, about 280 miles away.  The employer provided an allowance for food and motel lodging in Grand Marais, and the employee worked the normal day shift at the job site.  The employee sustained a fatal injury, during off-duty hours, while driving back to his motel after a voluntary dinner sponsored by the employer followed by stops at various places of entertainment.

The Supreme Court again addressed the question of whether the employee was a traveling employee, concluding the petitioner’s reliance on such cases was, consistent with the court’s reasoning in Cavilla, “clearly misplaced.”^[4]  Bonfig 199 N.W.2d at 799, 801, 26 W.C.D. at 328, 330.  The court, based on a lengthy review of Cavilla, concluded the employee’s death was not compensable because it occurred at a place other than the premises where his work duties were performed and did not occur during his hours of service.  The court held an employee has the burden of proving that, at the time of the injury, he was engaged in the performance of his regular work duties or, if not, was performing a special errand for his employer.^[5]  The court stated the petitioner failed to prove the deceased employee, while driving to his temporary motel residence after work hours, was engaged in work-related activity, and affirmed the commission’s denial of compensation on the basis that the decedent’s death did not arise out of or in the course of his employment.

Similarly, in Matetich v. Ulland Bros., the employer was in the business of highway and heavy construction, performing work at job sites throughout Minnesota.  The employee was working on a project on the Gunflint Trail, about a three-hour drive from his home.  As a rule, when a job site was more than 65 miles away from his home, the employee obtained accommodations near the job site.  The hotel or motel selected was the employee’s own choice.  The employer did not pay a per diem or other reimbursement for hotel and meal expenses, although transportation was provided from the job site to the employee’s personal vehicle at the end of the work day and/or to the place of lodging.  The employee normally worked a 10- to 16-hour day at the job site.  In the early-morning hours before work on July 12, 1991, the lodge at which the employee was staying was engulfed in flames and the employee was injured escaping the fire.

The employee in Matetich, as did the employees in Cavilla and Bonfig, argued that he was a traveling employee and was entitled to portal to portal coverage while working away from the employer’s business office and his home.  The employer and insurer argued the employer’s “premises” was the job site on the Gunflint Trail, that the employee’s motel became his temporary residence while working on an out-of-town project, and that the employee was covered only while performing his work duties at the job site during his hours of service.

This court discussed Cavilla and Bonfig at length, concluding that pursuant to the Supreme Court’s decisions, an employee engaged in construction-type work, at a specific job site, with specific hours of work is not provided with portal to portal coverage under the traveling employee rule, and that the general rule providing for workers’ compensation coverage to an employee only while on the employer’s premises, during the employee’s hours of service, while performing his regular work duties, applied to exclude the employee from coverage while residing at a motel near the employer’s job site.

In this case, as in Cavilla, Bonfig, and Matetich, the employee worked for an employer whose work involved construction jobs at out-of-town sites.  This particular job was expected to last about two months.  The job site was too distant to commute daily to and from his home, so the employee stayed at a motel in Duluth, about five to seven miles from the job site during the work week.  After work hours, the employee’s time was his own to do with as he pleased.  The employee was a glazier, and his work for the employer was constructing a greenhouse on the roof of a building at St. Scholastica College.  The work occurred Monday through Thursday, ten hours a day.  The accident occurred on the public streets, after the employee’s weekend off work, and before the employee’s work day began.

The employee, however, argues the facts in this case are more like those in Schwalbe v. American Red Cross, 72 W.C.D. 121 (W.C.C.A. 2011).  We disagree.  Ms. Schwalbe was a collections supervisor whose responsibilities included managing bloodmobile drives throughout Minnesota and parts of South Dakota, Iowa, and Wisconsin.  As part of her job, the employee traveled around the region covering blood drives on the dates and at the times and places at which they occurred.  The employee was injured on the return leg of a two-day trip from St. Paul, Minnesota, to Rice Lake, Wisconsin, to Eau Claire, Wisconsin, and back to St. Paul.  This court affirmed the compensation judge’s finding that the employee was a traveling employee, noting the employee did not work fixed hours at a fixed location and that travel was a part of the service the employee performed for the employer.  In this case, unlike Schwalbe, the employee was assigned to work at a specific job site for several months, during specified hours, and was not engaged in the performance of his regular duties as a glazier at the time of the accident.

The employee further argues that facts matter and that this case is distinguishable from Cavilla, Bonfig, and Matetich, on the facts.  The employee points to differences such as whether the employee was or was not reimbursed for meals, lodging, or travel, and was or was not required to stay at a specific hotel or lodging.  There is no indication that such factors, which varied from case to case, would have changed the outcome of any of these cases.  The employee also argues that this case is distinguishable because the employee was only a mile or two away en route to work at the time of the accident, and in the cases relied upon by the compensation judge, the accidents occurred hours after the work day and/or at a place more distant from the work site.  We decline to adopt a balancing test - - proposed by the employee’s counsel - - requiring the judge to ascertain whether an event leading to an injury is sufficiently close in time, place, or details to be compensable.

As set forth by the Supreme Court in Cavilla and Bonfig, when an employee is working at an out-of-town location for an extended period of time, at a specific premises and during specified work hours, an injury sustained en route from his temporary residence to the work premises, while not engaged in the performance of his regular work duties or on a special errand for the employer, does not occur in, on, or about the premises where the employee’s services require his presence at the time of injury or during the hours of his service as an employee, and does not, therefore, arise out of and in the course of employment.  We, accordingly, affirm the decision of the compensation judge.