The employee appeals from the compensation judge’s determination that the employee’s injury on October 25, 2012 did not arise out of and in the course and scope of his employment.  We affirm.

The employee began working for the employer in April 2012 as a truck driver.  His job was driving a company-owned gravel truck on road construction projects.  The work was seasonal in nature and ended in the fall.  The exact date of seasonal layoff for each employee depended on the timing of the specific projects being performed.  In the employee’s case, he was laid off from work for the season on October 5, 2012, although he understood that if the employer got further contracts, there was a possibility that he might be called back to work for another job assignment that fall.  He anticipated that even if he was not called back for further work that fall, he might be called back by the employer again in the spring.  There was no guarantee that the employee would be rehired in the spring, but the employer’s records indicate that the employee had been given good performance evaluations by supervisors as of his layoff date and was recommended for further employment.

Drivers were required to furnish some tools and supplies to carry in their assigned truck, including a CB radio used to communicate with the employer and among other drivers during jobs.  Some employees had cleaned out their trucks immediately when laid off in the fall, while others left their radio, supplies, and equipment in their assigned truck over the winter in anticipation of returning to work the following spring.  There was no requirement that these personal items be removed while the trucks were parked over the winter.  When the employee was laid off, he initially left his personal supplies and the radio in his assigned truck.

After a few weeks, the employee concluded that he was not going to be called back to any further work that fall.  On October 25, 2012, he went to the employer’s truck yard to retrieve his personal tools, supplies, and the radio.  The employee picked that date because he happened to have travel plans that day which would take him near the employer’s truck yard.  No one from the employer’s offices had contacted him to request that he clean out his assigned truck, and he was not being paid while doing so.

When the employee arrived at the truck yard, he obtained the keys to his assigned truck, which at that time was parked at a maintenance bay.^[1]  The employee’s CB radio used an antenna that was clipped onto the passenger-side rearview mirror.  While the employee was taking his radio antenna off of the truck, he fell and injured his shoulder.  The employer and insurer denied liability for the injury, and the employee filed a claim petition.

Following a hearing, the compensation judge found that the employee was present at the employer’s facility solely to retrieve his personal items and that his injury did not arise out of and in the course of his employment.  The employee appeals.

“[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.”  Krovchuk v. Koch Oil Refinery, 48 W.C.D. 607, 608 (W.C.C.A. 1993).

The underlying facts of this case, as found by the compensation judge, are not disputed on appeal, and the issue presented is solely an issue of law.  The compensation judge found that the appellant was not an employee of Myles Lorentz, Inc., on October 25, 2012, and that his activities on that date were personal in nature and not in the performance of work duties for the employer.  Accordingly, the judge concluded that the preponderance of the evidence failed to show that the employee’s injury arose out of and in the course and scope of employment with Myles Lorentz, Inc.

 Our statutes define a personal injury as an “injury arising out of and in the course of employment.”  Minn. Stat. § 176.011 (16), states:

Generally, the “course and scope” requirement limits compensable injuries to those which “occur within the time and space boundaries of the employment relationship.”  Foley v. Honeywell, 488 N.W.2d 268, 272 (Minn. 1992).  Here, it was undisputed that the employee’s services had been suspended by layoff more than three weeks before the employee was injured.

The employee, however, notes that the Minnesota Supreme Court has held that under certain circumstances, an injury sustained outside the usual time or place of employment may nonetheless be compensable where the employee was engaged in activities that were reasonably incidental to the employment.  The employee cites to cases dealing primarily with employees injured during a lunch break, before or after work, or in or en route to or from employer-owned parking lots.  The injuries sustained in these cases, although occurring slightly outside the usual time of employment, were closely proximate to the hours of work and reasonably incidental thereto.  We think they are distinguishable from the present case on that basis.

The employee argues that the possibility that he might be recalled to further work the following spring, combined with the employer’s actions in allowing him access to its truck yard, should be construed as demonstrating an ongoing employment relationship.  We disagree.  There was no guarantee that the employee would be recalled to further work in the spring, and in the interval, there were no work duties for the employee to perform.  Under the specific facts of this case, we cannot conclude that the compensation judge erred in failing to find an ongoing employment relationship following the employee’s layoff.

Even if we were to accept the employee’s argument postulating a continuing employment relationship during the layoff, we note that a primary consideration in cases dealing with injuries sustained outside of the employee’s regular schedule and duties is whether the employee’s actions at the time of the injury were in advancement of the employer’s interests.  “An act outside an employee’s regular duties which is undertaken in good faith to advance the employer’s interests, whether or not the employee’s own assigned work is thereby furthered, is within the course of employment.”  Swenson v. Zacher, 264 Minn. 203, 211, 118 N.W.2d 786, 791, 22 W.C.D. 342, 351 (1962) (quoting 1 Larson, Workmen’s Compensation Law § 27).

Here, the evidence was that the employee was not paid anything following the layoff; that he was not asked to come in and clear out his belongings from the truck; and that the employer did not exercise any control over the employee’s conduct in retrieving his belongings from the truck.  In this specific case, there was no evidence that the employee’s actions to remove his radio and other belongings was an act in furtherance of the employer’s interests, as the presence of the employee’s radio and other items in and on the truck did not interfere with the employer’s business, as the truck was not in use by the employer over the winter.

On the specific facts of this case, we conclude that the compensation judge correctly concluded that the employee’s retrieval of personal property three weeks after layoff, solely upon his own volition and for his own purposes, does not constitute an activity sufficiently incidental to the employment to bring his injury within the course of the employment.

The compensation judge’s denial of primary liability is affirmed.