377 P.3d 133
Okla.2016Background
- A. Todd Holliman (Worker) was a floor hand for Twister Drilling Co.; he lived ~40 miles from a drilling rig and commuted to a remote site where crews worked 24/7.
- Employer paid travel pay ($60–$80) for crews; the driller received it but this crew had an agreed rotation to share travel pay among members.
- On May 15, 2013, after finishing a shift, Worker was a passenger in his vehicle (supervisor driving) and was injured in a fatal two-car crash.
- Worker filed for workers’ compensation for physical and psychological injuries; the trial tribunal awarded benefits finding an exception to the going-and-coming rule.
- A three-judge panel and the Court of Civil Appeals reversed, holding the injury did not fall within exceptions (finding no special task and that Worker had not received travel pay that day).
- The Oklahoma Supreme Court vacated the appellate rulings and sustained the trial award, holding the travel-pay/transportation exception applied given the employer’s practice and the crew’s rotation agreement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether injury "in the course of" employment despite occurring while returning from work | Holliman: travel to/from remote site was part of employment because employer paid travel and required travel; crew rotated travel pay | Twister: going/coming is personal; Worker didn’t receive travel pay that day so no travel-pay exception | Held: Compensable under travel-pay/transportation exception; crew agreement meant Worker was entitled to travel pay despite not receiving it that day |
| Whether any going-and-coming exception (special task) applies | Holliman: employer directed travel and travel-pay practice makes travel part of employment; alternatively special task or other exception | Twister: no special task performed; no agreement to share travel pay; therefore general rule bars compensation | Held: Special task not necessary; Christian travel/transportation exception applies given mutual benefit and employer-approved use of personal vehicles |
| Whether trial court’s legal rationale controls if result correct for different reason | Holliman: trial court award should stand if supported by record even if wrong rationale | Twister: appellate courts reversed on trial court’s specific reasoning | Held: Court may affirm on correct legal rationale different from trial court’s reasoning (Hall principle) |
| Whether evidence supported arising-out-of requirement | Holliman: causal connection between employment (required travel) and injury | Twister: commuting severs causal link | Held: Sufficient evidence of causal connection because travel was induced/compensated by employer |
Key Cases Cited
- Christian v. Nicor Drilling Co., 653 P.2d 185 (Okla. 1982) (recognizes transportation/travel-pay exception to going-and-coming rule)
- Barnhill v. Smithway Motor Express, 991 P.2d 527 (Okla. 1999) (defines "in the course of" employment and going-and-coming general rule)
- Veith v. Ogburn, 136 P.3d 1080 (Okla. Civ. App. 2006) (two-prong test: course of and arising out of employment)
- Williams Co., Inc. v. Dunkelgod, 295 P.3d 1107 (Okla. 2012) (date-of-injury and applicable law principles)
- Hall v. The GEO Group, Inc., 324 P.3d 399 (Okla. 2014) (appellate courts may affirm correct result on different legal rationale)