Opinion
No. 79CA0051
Decided July 12, 1979. Rehearing denied August 2, 1979. Certiorari denied October 9, 1979
School district sought review of the Industrial Commission order awarding workmen's compensation benefits to claimant for injuries sustained while he was a student teacher at an elementary school in the district.
Affirmed
1. WORKERS' COMPENSATION — Employer of Student Teachers — Shifted by Statute — To Institution Where Placed — Not — Sponsoring Institution — New Right — Not Created. Section 22-62-105(2), C.R.S. 1973, does not create a new right to workmen's compensation benefits for student teachers, but merely shifts workmen's compensation liability for injury to a student teacher to the institution in which the student teacher has been placed rather than the sponsoring institution as is the case for other job trainees.
2. Finding — Claimant — "Placed" in School District — Employee Thereof — Supported by Record — Binding on Review. Where industrial commission found that workmen's compensation claimant was training to be a teacher, was assigned to petitioner school district by his college, and was performing the duties of a student teacher at the time of his injury, its finding that he was "placed" within the meaning of the statutory definition of employee, and hence, was an employee is fully supported by the record and is binding on review.
Review of Order from the Industrial Commission of the State of Colorado.
John V. Fitzsimons, for petitioners.
J. D. MacFarlane, Attorney General, Ann Sayvetz, Assistant, for respondent Industrial Commission.
Joseph Genova, Jr., for respondent Donald W. Dittmar.
Petitioners seek reversal of the Industrial Commission's order awarding compensation to respondent Donald W. Dittmar for injuries sustained while he was a student teacher at an elementary school in petitioner School District No. 60, Pueblo County. We affirm.
The facts are not in dispute. Dittmar was an education major at Southern Colorado State College (now the University of Southern Colorado). He was a student who was teaching in order to fulfill his degree requirements to qualify for teaching certification. There was evidence that the college paid for the supervision of claimant's work. He reported directly to the elementary school each day and had full responsibility for a fifth grade class. On May 23, 1973, he was injured while supervising his students' playground activities.
Petitioners contend that § 22-62-105(2), C.R.S. 1973, effective July 6, 1973, creates a new right to workmen's compensation coverage for student teachers and that injuries suffered by student teachers before the effective date of the statute are not compensable under the Workers' Compensation Act. Petitioners further allege that even if § 8-41-106(1)(a)(IV), C.R.S. 1973, applies to some student teachers it does not apply here because Dittmar was not an "employee" under the statute's definition.
Section 8-41-106(1)(a)(IV), C.R.S. 1973, defines "employee" to include:
"Any person who may at any time be receiving training under any work or job training . . . program sponsored by any . . . institution of the state of Colorado or of any . . . school district, or private or parochial school or college, who, as part of any such work or job training . . . program . . . is placed with any employer for the purpose of training or learning trades or occupations shall be deemed while so engaged to be an employee of the respective . . . institution of the state of Colorado or of the . . . school district, or private or parochial school or college sponsoring such training . . . program. . . ."
In 1973 the legislature enacted § 22-62-105(2), C.R.S. 1973, specifically defining the status of student teachers as follows:
"The student of teaching, during his field experience, shall be deemed an employee of the school district pursuant to the provisions of § 8-41-106, C.R.S. 1973, for the purpose of workmen's compensation and liability insurance as provided for other district employees."
[1] Petitioners' allegation that § 22-62-105(2), C.R.S. 1973, creates a new right to workmen's compensation for student teachers misconceives the plain meaning of the statute. American Metal Climax, Inc. v. Claimant in re Death of Butler, 188 Colo. 116, 532 P.2d 951 (1975). Section 22-62-105(2) deems the school district the employer of the student teacher whereas the general provision of § 8-41-106(1)(a)(IV) designates the sponsoring institution as the employer of its job trainees. Section 22-62-105(2) merely shifts workmen's compensation liability for injury to student teachers to a different institution; where applicable, it is a legally enforceable specific exception to the general rule prescribed by § 8-41-106(1)(a)(IV). See Weather Engineering Manufacturing, Inc. v. Pinon Springs Condominiums, 192 Colo. 495, 563 P.2d 346 (1977). The Commission correctly determined that Dittmar was entitled to workmen's compensation and that Southern Colorado State College was his employer under § 8-41-106.
Petitioners contend that, notwithstanding the applicability of § 8-41-106, C.R.S. 1973, to student teachers in appropriate circumstances, Dittmar was not an employee within the statute's definition because he was not "placed with an employer." The Industrial Commission here found Dittmar was training to be a teacher, was assigned to petitioner school district by his college, and was performing the duties of a student teacher at the time of his injury, and that, therefore, he was "placed" within the meaning of the statute.
[2] Whether an injured worker is an employee is a question of fact to be determined by the Industrial Commission. Rocky Mountain Dairy Products v. Pease, 161 Colo. 216, 422 P.2d 630 (1966). The Commission's finding that Dittmar was an employee is fully supported by the record and will not be disturbed on review. Rocky Mountain Dairy Products v. Pease, supra; cf. Denver Public Schools v. DeAvila, 190 Colo. 184, 544 P.2d 627 (1976).
Order affirmed.
JUDGE VAN CISE and JUDGE STERNBERG concur.