CITY OF TULSA v. MAYES, 2017 OK CIV APP 1

Claimant (Mayes) worked 23 years for City of Tulsa as a training and communications specialist doing typing/data entry and developed bilateral elbow and wrist neuropathies attributed to repetitive work.
Employer admitted right-arm conditions were work-related and paid earlier treatment; trial court found compensable cumulative trauma to both arms/hands and reserved TTD and medical issues for later hearing.
Employer abolished Claimant’s position by a "Final Lay-off Notice" effective June 30, 2013; memorandum said he would be laid off unless offered and started another City position by July 1, 2013, and noted severance and recall procedures.
Claimant filed for benefits June 28, 2013, was examined by an IME who restricted him (no typing) and recommended further treatment; Claimant sought TTD from December 3, 2013 onward.
Employer defended the TTD claim on grounds Claimant voluntarily separated (could have bumped into other positions or accepted light duty) and noted Claimant had some post-termination earnings; trial court awarded TTD from December 3, 2013, and a three-judge panel affirmed.
On appeal to the Court of Civil Appeals, Employer preserved only the voluntary-separation argument; the court limited review to whether the separation was voluntary and sustained the panel, finding the layoff employer-instigated and not a voluntary resignation.

Issue	Mayes' Argument	City of Tulsa's Argument	Held
Whether Claimant voluntarily separated from employment, barring TTD	Separation was employer-instigated layoff; not a voluntary resignation	Claimant voluntarily quit (could have bumped or taken other positions) so not entitled to TTD	Separation was not voluntary; TTD award sustained

B.E. & K. Constr. Co. v. Abbott, 59 P.3d 38 (Okla. 2002) (employee who volunteered for employer-instigated RIF not treated as having resigned for TTD purposes)
Tubbs v. Oklahoma Tax Comm'n, 28 P.3d 624 (Okla. Civ. App. 2001) (discussed; factual distinction where claimant fit for light duty and resigned)
Smith v. Millwood Schools, 90 P.3d 564 (Okla. Civ. App. 2004) (discussed; contract expiration and employer had no continuing obligation to employ)
Patterson v. Sue Estell Trucking Co., Inc., 95 P.3d 1087 (Okla. 2004) (continued employment is not a prerequisite to workers' compensation eligibility)
Peoplelink, LLC v. Bear, 373 P.3d 1019 (Okla. 2014) (standard of appellate deference to workers' compensation court findings)