Colorado Workers’ Compensation Jurisdiction

Most of the time, it’s pretty obvious which state’s workers’ compensation laws apply in a particular situation. When a worker who lives in Denver, Colorado Springs, Pueblo, Grand Junction or another community in the state gets injured on the job in Colorado, the jurisdiction is usually pretty clear. Colorado workers’ compensation laws will apply because they’re a resident of Colorado working in Colorado.

For example, let’s say a Colorado Springs resident gets hurt one day at his job at an Amazon warehouse. They’re a resident of the state, and their employer is a business registered in Colorado, where the injury occurred. In this case, jurisdiction is pretty obvious that Colorado workers’ compensation laws apply.

However, some businesses do work in different states, and some Colorado residents commute to neighboring states for work or vice versa. In these cases, workers’ compensation jurisdiction (i.e., which state’s laws apply) isn’t as clear.

For example, consider that many companies, especially construction firms and trucking companies, do business in other states. Perhaps a worker commutes the 47 miles between Fort Collins and Cheyenne, Wyoming, for their job. Or maybe someone living in Durango, Colorado, commutes the 51 miles from their home to a job over the state line in Farmington, New Mexico.

How do workers know which state’s laws they’re covered by in these situations?

We’ll answer this question and explain the major legal precedents impacting workers’ compensation jurisdiction in Colorado in the sections below. If you have further questions after reading this information, we invite you to reach out to our Colorado workers’ compensation attorneys for answers about your specific case.

Industrial Commission of Colorado v. Aetna Life Insurance, Co. (1918)

In Industrial Commission of Colorado v. Aetna Life Insurance, Co., a Colorado-based employer hired a Coloradoan to supervise construction projects across the West. While traveling from Wyoming to Idaho one day, the worker was tragically killed in a car accident.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court of Colorado awarded full workers’ compensation benefits to the worker’s heirs, stating that it was an “essential part of his employment that the deceased should travel” and that the contract of employment created protection for the employee out of state.

Without this protection, the deceased’s employer would have been required to purchase workers’ comp insurance in every state where they did business—something that would have been a prohibitive cost indeed.

Platt v. Reynolds (1929)

Conversely, just because an injury occurs in Colorado doesn’t mean that the injured employee is automatically entitled to workers’ compensation benefits.

Another early theory of jurisdiction involved what’s called a “substantial portion” of employment, which was codified in the case Platt v. Reynolds. In this case, which remained the standard until 1957, the court ruled that an employment contract made in Colorado (with no other ties to the state) wasn’t enough to grant the injured employee coverage under Colorado workers’ compensation.

State Compensation Insurance Fund v. Howington (1956) and Extraterritorial Provisions

Statutory time limits are provided in more detail in the extraterritorial provisions of Colorado’s workers’ compensation statutes, which create an exception to the rules outlined in the Perryman case. As long as an injury occurs out of state within 6 months of the time the claimant left the state, they’re still covered.

For example, in State Compensation Insurance Fund v. Howington, the injured worker was a miner hired in Colorado who was immediately sent to work in Utah. Even though he had never worked in Colorado and was going to be working in Utah for an indefinite period, he was awarded Colorado workers’ compensation benefits because his injury occurred within 6 months of him being hired and assigned to work in Utah.

Hathaway Lighting v. Industrial Claims Appeals Office (2006)

However, extraterritorial provisions do require the claimant to have been physically present in Colorado at some time. For example, in Hathaway Lighting v. Industrial Claims Appeals Office, a claimant who was a resident of Washington State and hired by a Colorado firm to work on projects out of state was injured while working in Oregon.

The court determined the worker was not entitled to Colorado workers’ compensation benefits under extraterritorial provisions since he had never set foot in Colorado from his hire date to the date of injury.