316 P.3d 234
Okla. Civ. App.2013Background
- Patricia Carney, a night-shift customer service agent for DirecTV, left the employer's premises during a scheduled 30-minute lunch to eat at her nearby apartment and was returning to work when she tripped on a parking-lot curb on DirecTV property, fractured her right arm, and required surgery.
- DirecTV's parking lot was for employees, monitored by a security guard, and accessible to pedestrians; Claimant had to traverse the lot to reach her desk and log into her computer to begin work after breaks.
- Claimant filed a workers' compensation claim alleging the injury arose out of and in the course of employment; DirecTV denied compensability.
- Trial court found the injury non-compensable under 85 O.S. § 312(6), concluding the route was a non‑marked shortcut and the location was not an area where "essential job functions are performed." A three-judge panel affirmed with one dissent.
- The Court of Civil Appeals reviewed de novo because material facts were undisputed and concluded the trial court misinterpreted § 312(6), vacating and remanding for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Carney's Argument | DirecTV's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether injury "arose out of and in the course of employment" under § 312(6) | Injury occurred on employer premises after arrival and before termination; parking lot ingress is part of course of employment | Area where injury occurred is not an area where essential job functions are performed, so injury is excluded | Court held injury occurred in course of employment; trial court's exclusionary reading of "essential job functions" was contrary to law and against clear weight of evidence |
| Proper construction of the subordinate clause "excluding areas not under the control of the employer or areas where essential job functions are not performed" | Clause should be read as an either/or exclusion that does not abrogate parking-lot rule or personal-comfort exception | Interpreted clause to exclude employer-controlled areas where essential job functions are not performed (thus denying coverage) | Court held subordinate clause does not convert employer‑controlled areas into per se noncompensable zones; trial court's reading was grammatically and legally incorrect |
| Applicability of the "personal mission" exception | Claimant was not on a personal mission; she was returning to begin work after break | Argued alternatives existed and claimant chose to leave premises for personal reasons | Court found no personal-mission basis; exception not applicable to deny benefits |
| Whether § 312(6) abrogated established parking‑lot rule | § 312(6) codifies prior law and preserves parking‑lot rule and special-mission rule | Claimed § 312(6) supports denying coverage for injuries in areas without essential job functions even if employer-controlled | Court concluded Legislature did not intend to abrogate parking-lot rule; precedent remains controlling |
Key Cases Cited
- E.I. duPont deNemours & Co. v. Redding, 147 P.2d 166 (Okla. 1944) (employer-supervised parking lot considered part of employer premises for ingress/egress)
- Greenway v. Nat'l Gypsum Co., 296 P.2d 971 (Okla. 1956) (employment covers reasonable time and space for ingress and egress)
- Veith v. Ogburn, 136 P.3d 1080 (Okla. Civ. App. 2006) (employment includes reasonable margin for ingress/egress)
- Barnhill v. Smithway Motor Express, 991 P.2d 527 (Okla. 1999) (compensable injury must arise out of and in the course of employment)
- Yzer, Inc. v. Rodr, 280 P.3d 323 (Okla. 2012) (definition of "in the course of employment" relates to time, place, circumstances)
- Ogg v. Bill White Chevrolet Co., 720 P.2d 324 (Okla. 1986) (on‑premises personal errands can be purely personal mission and not compensable)
- Stroud Mun. Hosp. v. Mooney, 933 P.2d 872 (Okla. 1996) (special-mission rule preserved for employer-directed off‑premises tasks)