328 P.3d 1190
Okla.2014Background
- Claimant slipped on a rug placed by Graham Public Schools outside an employee exit door while leaving work early for a family medical emergency on Feb. 25, 2011.
- Claimant testified the rug slipped out from under her and she could not rise until off the rug; employer did not dispute placement of the rug or the facts of the fall.
- Workers' Compensation Court found the injury compensable; the Court of Civil Appeals reversed, holding the claimant was on a personal mission and the injury did not arise out of employment.
- Claimant sought certiorari review by the Oklahoma Supreme Court challenging the Court of Civil Appeals' application of the going-and-coming rule.
- The key legal question: whether the injury "arose out of" employment under Corbett's two-factor test, including whether the precipitating risk was created or maintained by the employer.
- Statutory definition of employment (85 O.S. Supp. 2010, § 11(A)(5))—employment begins when employee arrives and ends when she leaves the place of employment—was considered relevant but not determinative where employer-created risk existed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Priddy) | Defendant's Argument (Graham Public Schools / CompSource) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether injury arose out of employment under going-and-coming doctrine | The rug that caused the fall was placed by employer on premises used by employees, so the precipitating risk was employer-created and the injury is compensable | Claimant was on a personal mission leaving early; injury arose from personal errand and thus is not job-related | Held: Injury arose out of employment because the precipitating risk (the rug) was created/maintained by employer; award reinstated |
| Applicability of Corbett v. Express Personnel factors | Corbett’s second factor (employer-created risk) applies and controls here despite claimant leaving early | Corbett/going-and-coming bars coverage for employees on personal missions | Held: Corbett does not bar recovery when employer-created risk caused harm; Corbett distinguished on facts |
| Effect of statutory employment definition (85 O.S. Supp. 2010, § 11(A)(5)) | Claimant remained within the statutory scope of employment when exiting through employer-controlled doorway | Employer argued personal mission makes statute inapplicable under prior precedent | Held: Statute did not preclude coverage where employer-controlled premises and employer-created hazard existed; statute’s exclusions did not apply |
| Standard of review for undisputed facts | Facts are undisputed; whether injury arose out of employment is a question of law for de novo review | Employer sought reversal of compensability finding | Held: De novo review applied; undisputed facts establish compensability as a matter of law |
Key Cases Cited
- Corbett v. Express Personnel, 936 P.2d 932 (Okla. 1997) (articulates two-factor test for going-and-coming injuries, including employer-created precipitating risk)
- Lanman v. Oklahoma County Sheriff's Office, 958 P.2d 795 (Okla. 1998) (where evidence is undisputed, compensability is a question of law)
- Patterson v. Sue Estell Trucking Co., 95 P.3d 1087 (Okla. 2004) (de novo review standard for legal questions on appeal)
- Intermedix Corp. v. Wolf, 313 P.3d 287 (Okla. Civ. App. 2013) (distinguishable case denying coverage when hazard was on landlord-controlled common area rather than employer-controlled premises)