Teleworking from the Home Office: Workers’ Compensation Risk Considerations for Local Government Employers

Published 04/28/2026

At CIRSA, we often get the question of whether local government employees who work from home (“WFH”) are entitled to workers’ compensation benefits for injuries occurring while they’re working from home. In general, WFH injuries can be compensable just like injuries occurring on a traditional job site or in the office. The most important factor in the determination isn’t where an employee gets injured, it’s how it happened.

The Colorado Workers’ Compensation Act (the “Act”) applies the same statutory test to WFH injuries as it applies to injuries occurring in a traditional workplace: An injury to an employee is compensable “[w]here, at the time of the injury, the employee is performing [a] service arising out of and in the course of the employee’s employment” (and where the injury was not self-inflicted).(i) Generally, the employee carries the burden of proof to demonstrate that their injury is work-related and therefore compensable under the Act.

An injury “arises out of and in the course of” employment when it is “sufficiently interrelated to the conditions and circumstances under which the employee usually performs his or her job functions such that the activity may be characterized as an incident of employment.”(ii) In other words, to be compensable, the injury must result from the performance of an activity having a connection to job-related functions authorized by the employer. Conversely, injuries occurring during the performance of (personal) activities without a demonstrable connection to job-related functions are not compensable under the Act.(iii)

That said, applying the statutory test to a WFH injury is not as straightforward as it may seem. Indeed, according to the Colorado Supreme Court, an injury may be compensable if it arises from risks that are “reasonably incidental” to the employment, even if the injured employee wasn’t performing a specific work duty at the precise moment the injury occurred, and even if the activity does not confer a special benefit to the employer.(iv)

Local government employers should also take note of the potential applicability of the “personal comfort doctrine” to WFH injuries.(v) Pursuant to the personal comfort doctrine, an employee’s injury is considered incidental to employment, and thus compensable, if the injury occurred while the employee was engaging in an activity necessary for an employee’s personal comfort or welfare and part of normal working conditions (e.g., a routine, reasonably expected interruption from work, such as using the bathroom or getting coffee from the kitchen).(vi) Conversely, an injury is not compensable under the doctrine when it arises from an activity amounting to a “substantial deviation” from work duties (e.g., swimming in a backyard pool during work hours), or due to reckless or intentionally dangerous conduct or conduct prohibited by the employer.(vii)

Moreover, the distinction between work-related activities and personal activities is often more complicated in workers’ compensation claims for WFH injuries than it is in claims for injuries occurring on a job site or in the office. Indeed, employees working from home do so without direct employer supervision providing ample opportunity for an employee to blend work activities with personal activities, and employers have less control over the safety of at-home work environments. Furthermore, the most common WFH injuries suffered at home—e.g., injuries from slips and falls, repetitive motion and strain, and poor ergonomics—are difficult to distinguish from injuries without a connection to job-related function, particularly those injuries that occur over time (e.g., carpal tunnel syndrome). Given this, and that there may not be any witnesses to an at-home injury, it’s no wonder questions and disagreements frequently arise about the connection between at-home injuries and job-related functions.(viii)

That said, employers can lessen risks related to WFH injuries by adopting sound WFH policies or requiring employees to enter into written agreements governing the WFH arrangement (taking care not to unintentionally create a “contract for employment,” of course). Either approach can be effective, so long as the chosen method establishes clear and defined work parameters for WFH employees.

Whether workers’ compensation is owed to a WFH employee, particularly in cases where there’s a disagreement about the injury’s connection to job-related functions, may depend on factors such as the location within the home where the injury took place (e.g., office or kitchen), whether the employer authorized the employee to work in such location, whether the employee was performing functions authorized by the employer, and whether the injury occurred during work hours. Therefore, at a minimum, WFH policies should detail the work duties employees are authorized to perform from home, establish specific work hours (including regular break times and lunches), require employees to designate a distinct area within their home as their home workspace (that’s not the whole house and that’s free of hazards and meets the employer’s safety requirements), and require WFH employees to immediately report work-related injuries to appropriate supervisors so that claims may be promptly investigated.

Further to ensure workplace safety, employers should consider asking WFH employees to designate and describe their at-home workspaces and any potential hazards within them. Employers might further consider using a standard checklist to confirm employee representations about the safety of the home workspace and potential hazards. Some WFH policies expressly reserve the employer’s right to inspect the designated workspace area, in-person or virtually (alternatively or in addition to using a checklist). Moreover, WFH policies often reserve the employer’s right to terminate WFH privileges if the employer’s standards are not being met,(ix) with some authorizing additional discipline escalating up to and including termination. In any case, employers should commit to providing ongoing home workspace safety guidance for WFH employees.

Additional Resources:

Read this CIRSA Hazard Alert from CIRSA’s Risk Control Department addressing “Teleworking Safety” for more information about hazards related to WFH arrangements and potential methods for addressing such hazards and managing the safety of WFH employees.
Read CIRSA’s Office Ergonomics Workstation Guide for information about how to properly set up and adjust a computer workstation to promote comfort, reduce strain, and prevent injury.
Click here to download a sample remote workspace checklist, prepared by the Indiana State Personnel Department, designed to assess the overall safety of a home office or other remote workspace, which may serve as a helpful starting point for organizations seeking to develop their own remote workspace safety checklists.

If you have questions about this article, or if you’d like to receive an editable copy of CIRSA’s Office Ergonomics Checklist, contact CIRSA’s Deputy Executive Director/General Counsel, Sam Light at saml@cirsa.org, or CIRSA’s Associate General Counsel, Nick Cotton-Baez at nickc@cirsa.org.

Note: This article is intended for general information purposes only and is not intended or to be construed as legal advice on any specific issue. Readers should consult with their entity’s own counsel for legal advice on specific issues.

i. C.R.S. § 8-41-301(b).

ii. City of Northglenn v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 908 P.2d 139, 140 (Colo. App. 1995), citing City of Boulder v. Streeb, 706 P.2d 786 (Colo.
1985).

iii. While not binding on Colorado courts or administrative decisionmakers, a case from Florida illustrates how one court has addressed the issue of whether an at-home injury arises out of and in the course of employment. In Sedgwick CMS v. Valcourt-Williams (Fla. 1st DCA 2019), the Florida appeals court ruled that an authorized remote worker who tripped over her dog while getting coffee was not entitled to workers’ compensation. The court reasoned that, although the incident occurred during work hours, the hazard created by the dog was not a work-related risk, and was, instead, a personal risk existing regardless of employment. See also, e.g., Johnson v. ABM Industries, Inc. (2025 Cal. Wrk. Comp.) (addressing compensability of a work-from-home injury), and Verizon Pennsylvania, Inc. v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Alston) (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2006) (finding a compensable injury where a remote employee fell while returning to her home office to address a work-related call after briefly stepping away for a personal comfort break).

iv. City of Boulder v. Streeb, 706 P.2d 786, 791 (Colo. 1985) (en banc).

v. While Colorado courts have long recognized the personal comfort doctrine in traditional workplace settings, see Ocean Accident & Guaranty Corp. v. Pallaro, 180 P. 95 (Colo. 1919), the doctrine has not been applied in a reported court or administrative decision involving an injury suffered by a Colorado employee while working from home. That said, the personal comfort doctrine resulted from judicial interpretations of the “arising out of and in the course of employment” framework that governs compensability under the Act, and thus Colorado courts and administrative tribunals may find the doctrine applicable to WFH injuries.

vi. While not binding on Colorado courts or administrative decisionmakers, a case from Minnesota illustrates how the doctrine might apply to an injury
suffered by a WFH employee in Colorado. In Munson v. Wilmar/Interline Brands, et al., 2008 WL 5477285 (Minn. Work. Comp. Ct. App. Dec. 16,
2008), the Minnesota Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals applied the personal comfort doctrine to an employee sales representative who was required to maintain and often work from a home office from which the employee made calls to customers and prepared sales reports. The employee slipped and fell down the stairs while taking a short trip from the home office to the kitchen for coffee and injured his neck. The court held the injury was compensable under the doctrine as a routine, reasonably expected interruption from work.

vii. In re Rodriguez, 2008 WL 1970881 (Colo. Ind. Cl. App. Off.), quoting Ocean Accident & Guaranty Corp. v. Pallaro, 180 P. 95 (Colo. 1919) (“In Colorado, the employee is considered to remain in the course and scope of their employment while attending to a personal comfort unless the injury results from a ‘manifestly reckless or unreasonable hazard, amounting to intentional and willful misconduct, or by disregarding, or disobeying, some warning of danger at the place of the injury or prohibition relating to the thing being done either addressed to the workman or promulgated as a general rule of conduct while on the premises.’”).

viii. For similar reasons, even more questions may arise in claims for mental or psychological injuries, such as depression, anxiety, and PTSD. However, a full discussion of how these types of injuries are treated under the Act (and other potentially applicable laws) is beyond the scope of this article.

ix. Note, however, that allowing an employee to work from home may fall under the Americans with Disabilities Act’s reasonable accommodation requirement of modifying workplace policies, and thus local government employers should consider ADA requirements before taking steps to revoke work-from-home privileges from employees who may be protected under the ADA.

Governor Polis Signs Workers’ Compensation Physician Choice Bill (HB25-1300) to Take Effect January 1, 2028

Printable Version

Published 8/13/2025

This Blog Post is to advise CIRSA Workers’ Compensation Pool members and other interested parties of the status of House Bill 25-1300, the Workers’ Compensation Benefits Proof of Entitlement bill (“HB 1300” or “the Bill”).

Governor Polis signed HB 1300 into law on June 4, 2025. As passed, the Bill has a January 1, 2028, effective date, and applies to workers’ compensation claims filed on or after that date.

The most prominent amendment to the Workers’ Compensation Act (“Act”) made by HB 1300 is to fundamentally change the rules for selection of the authorized treating physician (ATP) in workers’ compensation cases. The Bill replaces the current employer right to designate a list of four or more physicians from whom the employee selects an ATP with a right for the employee to select any Level I or Level II physician accredited by the Division of Workers’ Compensation (“DOWC”). The DOWC currently maintains a directory of approximately 1,000 accredited physicians/providers.

In addition, HB 1300 extends certain timelines for changes of physicians, allowing an employee to make a change later in the life of their workers’ compensation claim. The Bill also adds language to the Act expressly stating that employers and insurers must use the DOWC utilization standards when responding to requests for treatment authorization from a treating physician. Lastly, the Bill appears to eliminate the ability for employers with qualified onsite healthcare facilities to designate them as ATPs.

During the final days of the legislative session, the Bill was amended to delay its implementation from 2026 to 2028. While CIRSA and other stakeholders requested Governor Polis veto the Bill, ultimately, he signed it on June 4. In his accompanying signing statement, Governor Polis called for the creation of a working group
of stakeholders to develop recommendations around implementation of the Bill and legislation for the 2026 session. He noted the delayed effective date provides ample opportunity for action to address implementation issues.

Among other topics, Governor Polis stated the working group should consider and address the following:

Further clarifying the permissibility of in-house clinics that employ level I or level II accredited physicians as an option available to injured workers;
Clarifying that nothing precludes an employer or insurer from selecting any number of level I or level II accredited physicians to provide as a list of recommendations;
The functionality of the DOWC’s provider directory and clarifications around appropriate provider types to serve as a designated provider;
The accreditation process for providers; and
Clarification of any timelines, as needed to ensure workers receive prompt care.

CIRSA will be working with its lobbyist to participate in and track the efforts of the working group called for by the Governor and will provide further updates and information to members as we work toward the effective date of the Bill.

If you have questions about this article, contact CIRSA’s Deputy Executive Director/ General Counsel, Sam Light at saml@cirsa.org, or CIRSA’s Associate General Counsel, Nick Cotton-Baez at nickc@cirsa.org.

Workers’ Compensation Alert – New Injury Notice Requirements Effective August 10, 2022

Printable Version

Governor Polis recently signed House Bill 22-1112, which implements changes to the notice requirements for workers’ compensation injuries. The changes go into effect on August 10, 2022 and will affect CIRSA’s workers’ compensation pool members.

CIRSA has outlined below the key changes in notice requirements made under House Bill 22-1112. The below also provides suggestions regarding best practices to ensure compliance with the new provisions.

House Bill 22-1112 and Workers’ Compensation Rule of Procedure 3-6

House Bill 22-1112 and Workers’ Compensation Rule of Procedure Rule 3-6 will amend the process regarding how an employee reports a work-related incident to an employer and the notice which must be provided by the employer.

Time frame for the employee to report is extended to 10 days

House Bill 22-1112 extends the time frame for an employee to report a work-related injury, in writing, to his/her employer from four to 10 days.

Affixing the date and time of the receipt on the notice and providing a copy to the employee

The revised statute also requires that when an employer receives written notice of an injury from the employee, the employer is to:

Affix the date and time of the receipt on the notice.
Make a copy of the notice affixed with the date and time available to the employee within seven (7) days after the employer receives the notice.
If the employer fails to provide a copy of the notice to the employee, the period allotted to the employee for reporting is tolled until the notice is provided.

In short, the statute will now require the employer provide the employee with date and time stamped copy of their notice of injury. Therefore, CIRSA recommends that the employer develop a procedure for processing the written notice provided by the employee. CIRSA further recommends that the employer implement a clearly defined protocol, with appropriate training of individuals designated by the employer to receive notice of an injury.

Notice regarding reporting injuries must now be posted on revised form provided by CIRSA

The new Rule 3-6 requires that the Division’s Form WC 50 must be displayed by all employers in one or more conspicuous places at all the employer’s work sites at all times. Form WC 50 replaces both the current WC 49 and WC 50 as both are consolidated into one form (the new WC Form 50).
The new Rule 3-6 also requires the insurer to supply all of its insured employers with the revised Form WC 50. CIRSA will be mailing new WC Form 50 posters to all of its Workers’ Compensation pool members prior to the August 10, 2022 effective date of the new provisions.
If the employer does not display the new WC Form 50, the employee’s time frame to report the injury is tolled until such notice is displayed. Therefore, it is very important to follow the law and prominently display the Form WC 50.

What if the employer has actual notice of the injury?

The Act still provides that if the employer displays the statutory notice of the employee’s requirements for reporting injuries (Form WC 50) and the injury was not timely reported by the employee, then the employee could lose up to one day’s compensation for each day he/she failed to report the injury.

However, the House Bill 22-1112 changes now provide that the employee is not subject to this potential loss of compensation if the employer had actual notice of the injury, or the employee shows good cause for the failure to report the injury.

Therefore, CIRSA stresses that even if the Form WC 50 is appropriately displayed, the employer must properly report to CIRSA any injury of which the employer has actual notice.

You can view the complete text of House Bill 22-1112 here. You can also view here the Division’s rulemaking page for the recent changes to Rule 3-6, which includes links to blackline and final versions of the new Rule.

If you are a CIRSA Workers’ Compensation pool member and have any questions for CIRSA regarding the new notice and posting requirements please contact Marla Myers, WC Claims Supervisor at marla@cirsa.org.

This article was prepared by Pollart Miller LLC, a member of CIRSA’s workers’ compensation defense panel.