What Do You Think?
In Alaska, the “remote site doctrine” may expand the reach of the workers’ compensation act even to an employee’s residence–if that residence is supplied by the employer. A case involving a teacher injured at a school district-provided residence explores how far the doctrine may reach to make an employee’s injury compensable–and cut off his right to sue for negligence.
A teacher for a school district in a remote Alaskan Village was probably already having a rough go of it, with the nearest beach being the shore of the Bering Strait and having to take out the garbage when it’s 1,000 degrees below fahrenheit. But then – allegedly – the school district that leased his residence to him declined to repair a broken railing and, naturally, when the teacher took out the trash one weekend, he grabbed for the rail, it gave way, and he fell and injured himself.
The teacher sued the district for negligence. A lower court dismissed the case. It said that the teacher could not show he was entitled to any relief other than workers’ compensation benefits.
In Alaska, as in other states, workers’ compensation is usually the only remedy for a workplace injury. A negligence lawsuit is not allowed. In most cases, injuries that occur off site do not fall under the WCA, though. However, Alaska’s “remote site doctrine” authorizes workers’ compensation benefits for injuries at a remote job site if:
- The employee’s activity choices are limited by the remote site; and
- That limitation played a causal role in the employee’s injury.
So, if the employer can show the remote site doctrine applies, it’s protected from the employee’s negligence lawsuit.
Could the claimant proceed with his claim for money damages against the district?
A. No. Clearly, his home was effectively part of his workplace since the district was leasing it out to him. He was limited to workers’ compensation benefits and could not sue in tort.
B. Yes. It was questionable whether he was really living in a remote jobsite or engaging in work-related activities within the meaning of the remote site doctrine.
If you selected B, you agreed with the court in Mitchell v. Bering Strait Sch. Dist., No. S-19180, No. 7805 (Alaska 03/27/26), which concluded that the claimant might be able to show that his injuries fell outside the scope of the workers’ compensation act.
Get the lowdown on workers’ compensation compliance from all over the U.S. on Simply Research.
The Alaska Supreme Court found it was an error for the lower court to dismiss the case for failure to state a plausible claim. It was possible for the teacher to show the remote site doctrine did not apply.
For example, the teacher argued that taking out the trash on a weekend was not an employer-sanctioned activity, but was something anyone might do on a weekend. The employer never addressed this argument.
“It is entirely possible that [the teacher] could prove a set of facts that would establish that taking out the trash on a weekend is ‘an activity that most employees engage in … regardless of their location,’” the court said.
Further, it was questionable whether he was really living in an employer-provided facility. He might be able to show that he was not, especially given that the district had him sign a lease for the residence, required him to pay rent, made money from the deal, and did not subsidize his housing.
The court found that the teacher pointed to enough facts that could take his negligence claim outside of the workers’ compensation act’s exclusivity provision, and allow him to go forward with his lawsuit for money damages. It ruled that the lower court erred by dismissing the case.
