The self-insured employer appeals the compensation judge’s determination that Minnesota jurisdiction exists for the employee’s work injury in Wisconsin.  We affirm.

Jennifer H. Dunker, the employee, was working for Securitas Security Services USA, Inc., the self-insured employer, when she was injured on April 23, 2014, at a job site in Superior, Wisconsin.  The employer’s workers’ compensation claims were administered by Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc.

Ms. Dunker was living in Hermantown, Minnesota, in March 2014 when she saw an on-line posting on Craigslist advertising security guard jobs with the employer at “multiple sites in Minnesota.”  (T. 96.)  Ms. Dunker responded to the posting and was telephoned by Securitas to arrange an interview.  The interview took place on March 19, 2014, at the offices of Securitas in the DeWitt-Seitz Building in downtown Duluth, Minnesota.

A job offer was given to Ms. Dunker at the interview.  The written offer indicated that the “Location/Area” for the security guard position would be in Superior.  The position was to be a full-time day shift at an hourly wage of $10.00 with hours to be determined.  Ms. Dunker’s written acceptance of the job offer is dated March 25.

According to the evidence at the hearing, an individual employed as a security guard must have a permit to work in Wisconsin.  The employer submitted an application for a “private security permit” to an agency of the State of Wisconsin on behalf of the employee on March 26.  (Employer’s Ex. 8.)  Ms. Dunker testified that it was her understanding that it would take 30 days for the permit to be issued.  There is no evidence in the record that the permit was issued before the employee’s injury.  The form requesting the permit also provides for the issuance of a temporary permit, but a temporary permit was not requested.

The location identified as a job site for the employee was at Enbridge, an energy company, in Superior.  Ms. Dunker was issued a uniform specifically for that location.  She was also issued a standard Securitas uniform that she was to wear on other assignments that she could take on a “fill-in” basis.

The employee’s Exhibit O, introduced at the hearing, provided specific information as to the locations worked by the employee, the hours she worked, and her gross wages.  Ms. Dunker began working for Securitas during the pay period ending April 3, 2014, and her last day of work was the date of her injury, April 23, 2014.  During the time of her employment, she worked 27 hours in Minnesota at two different locations and 50.5 hours in Wisconsin at the Enbridge site.  She earned a total of $839.00, $363.00 in Minnesota and $476.00 in Wisconsin.  The compensation judge calculated that 43.27 percent of the employee’s earnings from the employer came from her work in Minnesota.

The employee was injured on April 23 while working at the Enbridge site in Superior.  She stepped on a railroad tie being used as a step on a gravel slope and fell as it rolled away.  Ms. Dunker fell backwards onto another railroad tie and injured her low back.

The self-insured employer accepted liability for the work injury and initially considered this to be an injury covered by Minnesota workers’ compensation law.  Subsequently, the employer contended that Minnesota did not have jurisdiction for the employee’s workers’ compensation claims.

The employee filed a claim petition seeking payment of temporary total disability benefits and medical expenses connected with her injury.  The employee’s claims were heard by a compensation judge on September 25, 2014.  In Findings and Order issued on October 30, 2014, the compensation judge determined that Minnesota jurisdiction existed for the employee’s claim.  The judge also found the work injury was a temporary lumbar sprain and awarded wage loss benefits and medical expenses.  The employer appeals the compensation judge’s determination of jurisdiction.

The facts as to jurisdiction are undisputed.  The only finding by the compensation judge that the employer appealed was the judge’s conclusion that Minnesota workers’ compensation statutes apply to the employee’s claims.  (Finding 15.)  When this court reviews a compensation judge’s legal conclusion based on undisputed facts, we consider the question of law de novo and we do not defer to the compensation judge’s determination.  Varda v. Northwest Airlines Corp., 692 N.W.2d 440, 65 W.C.D. 92 (Minn. 2005); Dorr v. Nat’l Marrow Donor Program, 70 W.C.D. 690, 693 (W.C.C.A. 2010), summarily aff’d (Minn. Nov. 29, 2010).

“Except as specifically provided by subdivisions 2 and 3, injuries occurring outside of this state are not subject to this chapter.”  Minn. Stat. § 176.041, subd. 5a.  Subdivision 2 provides, in pertinent part, that the Minnesota workers’ compensation statutes apply where “an employee who regularly performs the primary duties of employment within this state receives an injury while outside of this state . . . .”  Minn. Stat. § 176.041, subd. 2.  Subdivision 3 applies when “an employee hired in this state by a Minnesota employer receives an injury while temporarily employed outside of this state . . . .”  Minn. Stat. § 176.041, subd. 3.

The question for this court in the present case is whether the facts found by the compensation judge allow the application of Minnesota jurisdiction to the employee’s claims under subdivisions 2 or 3.

Did Ms. Dunker regularly perform the primary duties of her employment in Minnesota?  It is clear that the parties intended that Ms. Dunker would spend most of her time at Enbridge in Superior with fill-in work in the Duluth metro area.  The intent of the parties as to where the employee might work in the future does not answer the question to be addressed by this court.  Rather, we must consider whether Ms. Dunker regularly performed the primary duties of a security guard in Minnesota from the date she began working until the date she was injured.

In Burgard v. Innworks, Inc., slip op. (W.C.C.A. May 6, 1996), the employee was director of operations for a motel management company.  In his position, the employee followed a schedule in which he spent one week a month at the employer’s office in Minnesota, one week a month with his family in South Dakota, and the other two weeks at various motels throughout the upper Midwest.  The employee was injured while repairing a bathroom ceiling at a motel in Emporia, Kansas.  In considering the application of Minn. Stat. § 176.041, subd. 2, to this case, the court noted that during his employment, the employee worked in Minneapolis 168 out of 514 days and decided that the employee regularly worked in Minnesota and Minnesota jurisdiction existed.  The court quoted a previous decision, which stated that the “statute does not require that more of the employee’s time be spent in Minnesota than elsewhere, only that the employee regularly perform ‘primary’ job duties in this state.”  Id. at 4 (quoting Gillund v. Royal/Milbank Ins. Co., 46 W.C.D. 520, 523 (W.C.C.A. 1992), summarily aff’d (Minn. Apr. 30, 1992)).

In Gillund, the employee, a claims adjuster for his employer, alleged he sustained a work-related heart attack while shoveling snow at his home office in North Dakota.  Since the employee regularly traveled to Minnesota for his claims activities, the court found jurisdiction in Minnesota under Minn. Stat. § 176.041, subd. 2.  Gillund, 46 W.C.D. at 524.  Contrary results were reached in Torgerson v. L.H. Sowles, slip op. (W.C.C.A. Dec. 5, 1995), where the employee had never worked for the employer anywhere other than outside of Minnesota and in Letourneau v. Benson Elec., slip op. (W.C.C.A. June 16, 1998), where the employee had last worked in Minnesota for the employer more than three months before his out-of-state injury and there was no indication at the time of injury that the employee would be working in Minnesota.

In this case, Ms. Dunker had worked for the employer less than four weeks when she was injured.  During that time, she worked 77.5 hours, of which 27 hours or about 35 percent of her time was worked in Minnesota.  She earned 45 percent of her wages in Minnesota.  Given these facts, we conclude that Ms. Dunker regularly performed the primary duties of her employment as a security guard in Minnesota and jurisdiction exists under Minn. Stat. § 176.041, subd. 2.

We turn to consideration of the possible application of Minn. Stat. § 176.041, subd. 3, to this case.  Application of that section requires hiring of an employee in Minnesota by a Minnesota employer and an injury which occurs while the employee was temporarily employed outside of Minnesota.  Ms. Dunker was clearly hired in Minnesota since that process took place at the office of the employer in downtown Duluth.  The determination of whether an employer is a Minnesota employer under Minn. Stat. § 176.041, subd. 3, is based on the nature and degree of its activities in this state.  Rundberg v. Hirschbach Motor Lines, 51 W.C.D. 193, 201 (W.C.C.A. 1994), aff’d by order with mem., 51 W.C.D. 208 (Minn. Aug. 18, 1994).  Although the employer’s corporate address is in California, the employee’s hiring and supervision were done in Minnesota and services for hire were performed for the employer in Minnesota.  The employer was a Minnesota employer for purposes of this statute.

The question here is whether Ms. Dunker was temporarily employed outside of Minnesota at the time of her injury.  It appears that the employer intended that the employee would be employed in Wisconsin after the necessary permit was received. However, no permit was received and Ms. Dunker was in transition as to her employment when she was injured. The evidence demonstrates that during her four weeks of employment, the employee worked at various times at two locations in Minnesota and at one location in Wisconsin.  The employee lived and worked in a metropolitan area located in two states.  Her work assignments were apparently made without regard to state boundaries.  As a result, her employment in both Wisconsin and Minnesota was temporary with regard to location.  See Vaughn v. Nelson Bros. Constr., 520 N.W.2d 395, 51 W.C.D. 159 (Minn. 1994) (an employee may have no permanent situs of employment and may be considered to always be in a temporary location).  We conclude Minn. Stat. § 176.041, subd. 3, also provides for Minnesota jurisdiction in this case.

The decision of the compensation judge is affirmed.