midwest city - del city schools v. simpson[1]

8/8/2019 Midwest City - Del City Schools v. Simpson[1]

1/7

NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATIONIN TIIE COURT OF CTVILAPPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

FEE_Et)()eT4201WORKERS'COMPENSATIONO

MIDWEST CITY/DEL CITYSCHOOLS,OWN RISK # I6LO2InsuranceCarrier,Petitioners,

vs.REGENIA K. SIMPSONandTIIEWORKERS'COMPENSATIONCOURT,

Respondents.

c;or.riir#'iui opFEAr-sSTATEOFOtilAt-totuitOcT ghUAMle6661 ' Rle IET,tERK

2OO9-t952Q

CaseNo. 107,867PAIiIEL: J. EldrldgeJ. FarrarJ. Grove - DLssents

For Petitioners

DMISION II

)))); w.c .c . / f)))) EN BAI.IC))))

PROCEEDINGTO REVIEW AN ORDEROFA THREE-JUDGEPAI{EL OFTHE WORKERS'COMPENSATIONCOURTHONORABLEJOHNM. MoCORMICK,TRIAL JUDGE

SUSTAINEDW. JeffreyDasovichDASOVICH LAW OFFICEOklahomaCity, OklahomaJobnD. ValentineRYANIBISHER RYANIOklahomaCity, Oklahoma For Respondent


2/7

OPINIONBY JOHNF. FISCTIER" RESIDINGJUDGE:EmployerMidwestCitylDel City PublicSchoolsappeals norderof a

three-judge anelof the Workers'Compensation ourt hat vacatedhe rialcourt'sorderand oundthat he njury sufferedby RegeniaK. Simpson Claimant)axose ut of, andwas sustainedn, the courseof her employment.

BACKGROIJNI)On January21,2009,Claimant,an employee f theMidwestCity/DelCity

PublicSchoots ystenl eft her deskat the schoolpremises o takeher unchbreak.The record ndicateshat Claimant's unchbreakwasnot strictly scheduled, uttakenwhenconvenient.Claimantwas ntending o visit her elderly atherduringher gnchbreak. As was henormalpracticeat her ob, Claimantdid not punch-out her timecardbefore leavingfor lunch. As Claimantwalked directly from thebuilding andapproacheder car,whichwasparkedapproximatelyhreespacesfrom the front doorof thebuilding,sheslippedoffa curband racturedher rightankle,requiring surgery.

The trial court deniedClaimant's equestor benefitson the grounds hather njury did not ariseout of and n thecourseof her employment.Claimantappealedhis decision o a three-judge anel,which foundher njury compensable,andvacatedhetrial court'sorder ascontrary o law. Employerseekseviewof


3/7

this decision.The single ssueon appeals whether hethree-judge anelerred nfinding that Claimant's njury aroseout of, andwassustainedn, the courseof heremployment.

STAIIDARD OF REVIEWGeneratly,he ssueof whethera claimant's njury aroseout of and n the

courseof employnent s a questionof fact for the Workers'Compensation ourt,and he any-competent-evidencetandard f reviewapplies.City of Edmond. .Monday,1995OK L32,n4,9\OP.2d980,982. However,where he elevantactsareundisputednnappellate ourtreviews he owercourt'sdecisionasa matteroflaw, "dishubing it only if the undisputedmaterialfactsdonot support heWorkers'CompensationCourt'sorder." Amosv. SpiroPub- 9chs.,2004OK 4' fl5 ,85P.3d 13, 15.

It is undisputed,r", ",",--:::;:::. whenshesrippedon a curb n anemployer-providedarking ot, approximately neminuteafter eavingher desk otakeher approvedunchbreak.t "Generally,njuriessustained hile going o andcoming rom work,whenoccurringon employerpremisesnre deemedo have

t Employer'sbrief describeshe injuty as occurringwhenClaimant "slipped andfell"while 'bending to opena cardoor." However,the undisputed estimonyat trial wasthatClaimant slippedoffthe curb.o'


4/7

arisenout of and n the courseof employment.- udgev. Universityof Oklahoma,I 983 OK 67 n 4, 673P 2d 149 I 50.2Thearising-out-of-employmentequirementnecessitatesnevaluationof whetherClaimant'spresencen thepaxking ot whenleaving for a regular unchbreakwascausallyconnectedo the dutiesof heremployment. d.

The basicparking ot rule is statedas ollows:As to parking lots ownedby the employer,or maintainedby theemployer or its employees, racticallyall urisdictionsnow considerthempartof the "premises,"whetherwithin themaincompanypremises r separatedrom it. Therule is by no means onfined op*kiog lotsownedn onfiolled,or maintained y the employer.Thedoctrinehasbeenappliedwhenthe lot, althoughnot ownedby theemployer,wasexclusivelyused,or risedwith the owiter'sspecialpermission, r ust usedby the employees f this employer.

I Larson'sWorkers'Compensationaw $ 13.04(2)(a)2000) footnotesomitted)'

The treatiseurtherexplains hat "[o]nceaparking ot hasachieved, nder hesestandards,he statusof aportionof the employerls remises, ompensationcoverage ttacheso any njury thatwouldbe compensablen the mainpremises."Id. at$ 13.04(2)(b).Pursuanto Oklahomaworkers'compensationaw, the

2Although Fudge nvolved an injury sustainedwhile crossing he street o reachanemployer-spons6redurt iog lot, ratherthan n theparking lot, the holding in Fudge s not limitedto tle 'nu taof fiaffic, but insteadstands or theproposition thal whena parking lot constitutespart of the employer'spremises,an employee'snjury zustainedwhentaveling to or from the lotio theofficearisesout of and n thecourseof emplolmett. SeeVeithv. Ogbum,2006OK CfVAPP75,nzl,136 P.3d1080, 085.


5/7

parking ot in this caseconstitutes mployer'spremises.Turnerv. B Sew nn,2ooooK97,.1T9,8P.3d1070,1072.

"Since 1944, the OklahomaSupreme]Courthasconsistentlyecogpizedthat whenan njury occurson premises wnedor controlledby the employerwhilegoing o andcoming rom work, it is deemedo havearisenout of and n theconrse f employment."d. at!f 16, 8 P.3dat1074.However,he Courthas..limitedthe appticationof this ruleby requiringa causal onnection etweenheinjury andemploymentor that theprecipitatingrisk of harm wascreatedormaintainedby the employer." Id. (footnotesomitted)'

Employeraxgueshat theparking lot rule of Turnerdoesnot apply in thiscasebecauseClaimant ntendedo visit her elderly atherduringher unchbreak.Employerargueshat,because o'purelypersonal"missionmotivatedClaimant oleaveher desk,Claimant's njury is non-compensable. mployercitesCorbettv.Express ersonnet,lggT K 40, g36P.2d932,insupport f thisargument.Asimilar ule s found n Thomas . KeithHenselOpticalLabs,1982OK 120,653P.2dz}l, andFloydv. TacoMayo,2OO2 K 58,58 P.3d197. However,hesecases redistinguishablerom the situationat hand. In thesecases,heclaimantwas nvolved n apersonalmission,eitheroutsideof theregularlyscheduledunchbreakor after he work shift ended.Corbett nvolveda claimantwho was njured


6/7

whenhe ost controlof his motorcyclewhile attemptingo pull out of hisemployer'sparking ot. Ihe SupremeCourtspecificallynoted hat "Corbett eftthe workplaceshortlybeforehis lunch breakbegann order o conductpersonalbusiness ith hisbank." Corbett,1997OK 40 attl9, 936P.2dat934.3 nThornas,theCourtspecificallynoted hat he claimant eft his work'oabout tveminutesbeforeo'the cheduledunchbreak o removecb fromhis windshield.Thomas,l982OK 120atnz,653 P.2dat202. T\e Supreme ourtdistinguishedthesenon-habitgalandunusualdeparturesor personalpurposesrom regularlunchbreaks.Similarly, n Floyd,the claimant'sshift at a fast-food estaurant adended ndshehadsigned ut or the day.Floyd,2002OK 58 at\12-3,58 P'3dat196-97.Shewas njured,about ifteenminutesaftersigningout,whenshe ellwhile refilling her drink. Id. Here,Claimanthadnot clockedout andwas akingher regular unchbreak. Her leavingthework area o takean establishedunchbreakwasnot apurelypersonalmission. SeeRicheyv. CommanderMills, Inc.,1974o.K47,521P.2d05.

3 SeealsoHamiltonv.DubRichardson ord, 1998OK CIV APP 180,n3,970P.2dI 196, lg1-g1("The supreme ourtbasedts decisionon the fact that Corbettleft theworkplaceshortiybeforehis lunchbreak began n orderto conductpersonalbusinesswith his bank [andtfrisl exit from thepremiseswasnot within his employer'sestablishedreak ime for lunch.")'


7/7

The undisputed videncen this cases that Claimant ell on Employer'spremisesduring anormal lunch break,approximatelyoneminute after leavingherdesk. The factsandcircumstancesurrounding er njury areanalogouso thosein Tumer,andsupport he finding thatherpresencen theparking ot wasemployment elatedand her injury axose ut of and n the courseof heremploynent.Turner,2000OK97 atl25,18 P.3dat1076.

CONCLUSIONTheundisputedactsof this case all under he"parking ot" rule of Tumer,

and he Tumerrule is not limitedpursuanto these actsby Corbettv. Expresspersonnet, ggT OK 40, 936P.2d932,or similarcases.Accordingly,we find thethree-judge aneldid not err,andsustainhe orderappealed.

SUSTAIIIED.

WISEMAN,C.J.,andBARNES,J., concur.October 3,2010

midwest city - del city schools v. simpson[1]

Documents