CITY OF TULSA v. MAYES
2016 WL 7786134
Okla. Civ. App.2016Background
- Claimant Rod Mayes worked 23 years for City of Tulsa; since 2007 his job required typing/data entry. 2012 right-arm surgeries for work-related nerve entrapments; Employer admitted right-side causation. 2013 Claimant reported left-side symptoms; Employer denied treatment.
- Employer issued a "Final Lay-off Notice" (effective June 30, 2013) stating Claimant’s position was abolished and he would be laid off if not started in another City position by July 1; notice referenced placement options and severance but did not show an actual offer.
- Claimant filed for cumulative trauma (Form 3) June 28, 2013; trial court found compensable injury to both arms/hands and reserved TTD and treatment issues; an IME (Dr. Wong) found left-side work-related nerve entrapments and restricted Claimant from typing.
- Employer denied TTD and asserted a "voluntary separation" defense, arguing Claimant could have "bumped" into other positions or accepted light duty; Employer also later suggested Claimant earned outside income and contested medical sufficiency (but did not preserve those issues properly).
- Trial court awarded TTD from December 3, 2013; a three-judge Workers’ Compensation panel affirmed. City appealed only the voluntary-separation issue to this Court.
Issues
| Issue | Mayes' Argument | City of Tulsa's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Claimant’s separation was voluntary such that TTD is barred | Separation was caused by Employer’s abolishment of the position and lack of viable placement; not voluntary | Claimant voluntarily left employment (could have bumped into other positions or accepted light-duty) | Separation was not voluntary; award of TTD stands |
| Scope of appellate review / preservation of issues | N/A (Mayes maintained TTD and non-voluntary separation) | City attempted to raise medical sufficiency and outside earnings on appeal | City failed to preserve those other challenges; review limited to voluntary-separation issue |
Key Cases Cited
- B. E. & K. Constr. Co. v. Abbott, 59 P.3d 38 (Okla. 2002) (employee who volunteered for employer-planned reduction in force not treated as having voluntarily resigned for workers’ comp purposes)
- Tubbs v. Oklahoma Tax Comm’n, 28 P.3d 624 (Okla. Civ. App. 2001) (discussed; non-precedential; resignation ended right to TTD where claimant fit for light duty)
- Smith v. Millwood Schools, 90 P.3d 564 (Okla. Civ. App. 2004) (discussed; non-precedential; contract expiration and no ongoing duty to employ affected light-duty obligation)
- Patterson v. Sue Estell Trucking Co., 95 P.3d 1087 (Okla. 2004) (continued employment not a statutory requirement for workers’ compensation eligibility; employer not relieved of TTD by terminating employee)
- Peoplelink, LLC v. Bear, 373 P.3d 1019 (Okla. 2014) (standard of appellate deference to Workers’ Compensation Court factual findings)