From the Billing's Gazette, as reported on FreeRepublic.com:
"Court: Drunken deputy's fatal fall covered by work-comp
Associated Press
HELENA - The widow of a deputy sheriff who fell from a motel balcony after a night of drinking at a law enforcement conference is entitled to receive worker compensation death benefits, a divided Montana Supreme Court has ruled.
In its 4-3 decision Tuesday, the court said Shawn Van Vleet was working at the time of his death nearly four years ago, making his widow, Mindy Van Vleet, eligible for the benefits.
Van Vleet's late-night drinking with colleagues at the convention was no different from the work-related activities that he was involved with earlier in the evening when he socialized with others attending the gathering in Great Falls, the court said. Therefore, his death must be covered by his employer's insurer, it said.
The dissenting justices argued Van Vleet's partying after a convention-sponsored hospitality room was closed for the night had nothing to do with his duties in attending the conference and benefits should not be awarded to his widow and child.
The formula for calculating death benefits in such cases is spelled out in state law, but has yet to be calculated by the county's insurer.
Van Vleet, a Phillips County deputy, was attending a meeting of the Montana Narcotics Officers' Association in January 2001 and had been drinking in the convention's hospitality room for about six hours on the first day of the event.
The room closed at midnight, but Van Vleet and four others later obtained a key and resumed drinking in the room for about a half hour. A short time later, Van Vleet fell from a fourth or fifth floor balcony to the main floor of the motel.
He had a blood alcohol level of 0.20 at the time. State law says that Van Vleet's drunken state at the time of his death does not bar his widow's claim.
The county's insurer refused to pay Mrs. Van Vleet death benefits on the basis that her husband's actions at the time of his fall were not work-related. The ruling was upheld by state Workers Compensation Court Judge Mike McCarter.
On appeal, the Supreme Court said McCarter was wrong to draw a distinction between Van Vleet's first hours of drinking and socializing and the same activity later in the evening.
"Here, Shawn and his companions simply continued on with the same sponsored activity, including when they returned to the hospitality room and up until the time of Shawn's fall," Justice Jim Regnier wrote for the majority.
"The drinking that occurred was the continuation of the same activity, in the same way, in the same place, for the same purposes and with the same sanctions of the employer that mandates the conclusion Shawn began the night in the course and scope of his employment and remained there until his fall," he said.
But Chief Justice Karla Gray, in her dissent, said Van Vleet's late night drinking and subsequent fall occurred when he was off the job. Neither the association hosting the conference nor Van Vleet's employer condoned or authorized use of the hospitality room after hours, she said.
"Nor was there any benefit to his employer in the additional socializing," Gray added. "No evidence suggests ... that Shawn and his companions were doing other than personal, nonwork-related socializing."
Justices Patricia Cotter, John Warner and Bill Leaphart joined Regnier in the majority. Justices James Nelson and Jim Rice signed Gray's dissent. "
END OF ARTICLE. Two things come to mind: Personal responsibility, and HUH????? Although I realize that it would have been hard for his widow and child to make it without the benefits, this was NOT a work related accident. It WAS, however, alcohol related. I feel very sorry for his family- what a sad thing. But, this ruling is very skewed, imo.
Foo
"Court: Drunken deputy's fatal fall covered by work-comp
Associated Press
HELENA - The widow of a deputy sheriff who fell from a motel balcony after a night of drinking at a law enforcement conference is entitled to receive worker compensation death benefits, a divided Montana Supreme Court has ruled.
In its 4-3 decision Tuesday, the court said Shawn Van Vleet was working at the time of his death nearly four years ago, making his widow, Mindy Van Vleet, eligible for the benefits.
Van Vleet's late-night drinking with colleagues at the convention was no different from the work-related activities that he was involved with earlier in the evening when he socialized with others attending the gathering in Great Falls, the court said. Therefore, his death must be covered by his employer's insurer, it said.
The dissenting justices argued Van Vleet's partying after a convention-sponsored hospitality room was closed for the night had nothing to do with his duties in attending the conference and benefits should not be awarded to his widow and child.
The formula for calculating death benefits in such cases is spelled out in state law, but has yet to be calculated by the county's insurer.
Van Vleet, a Phillips County deputy, was attending a meeting of the Montana Narcotics Officers' Association in January 2001 and had been drinking in the convention's hospitality room for about six hours on the first day of the event.
The room closed at midnight, but Van Vleet and four others later obtained a key and resumed drinking in the room for about a half hour. A short time later, Van Vleet fell from a fourth or fifth floor balcony to the main floor of the motel.
He had a blood alcohol level of 0.20 at the time. State law says that Van Vleet's drunken state at the time of his death does not bar his widow's claim.
The county's insurer refused to pay Mrs. Van Vleet death benefits on the basis that her husband's actions at the time of his fall were not work-related. The ruling was upheld by state Workers Compensation Court Judge Mike McCarter.
On appeal, the Supreme Court said McCarter was wrong to draw a distinction between Van Vleet's first hours of drinking and socializing and the same activity later in the evening.
"Here, Shawn and his companions simply continued on with the same sponsored activity, including when they returned to the hospitality room and up until the time of Shawn's fall," Justice Jim Regnier wrote for the majority.
"The drinking that occurred was the continuation of the same activity, in the same way, in the same place, for the same purposes and with the same sanctions of the employer that mandates the conclusion Shawn began the night in the course and scope of his employment and remained there until his fall," he said.
But Chief Justice Karla Gray, in her dissent, said Van Vleet's late night drinking and subsequent fall occurred when he was off the job. Neither the association hosting the conference nor Van Vleet's employer condoned or authorized use of the hospitality room after hours, she said.
"Nor was there any benefit to his employer in the additional socializing," Gray added. "No evidence suggests ... that Shawn and his companions were doing other than personal, nonwork-related socializing."
Justices Patricia Cotter, John Warner and Bill Leaphart joined Regnier in the majority. Justices James Nelson and Jim Rice signed Gray's dissent. "
END OF ARTICLE. Two things come to mind: Personal responsibility, and HUH????? Although I realize that it would have been hard for his widow and child to make it without the benefits, this was NOT a work related accident. It WAS, however, alcohol related. I feel very sorry for his family- what a sad thing. But, this ruling is very skewed, imo.
Foo
