435 P.3d 121
Okla. Civ. App.2018Background
- Jerry Harwood, an employee at Ardagh Group's Sapulpa glass plant, was struck by a car while crossing a public highway crosswalk after clocking out and leaving work.
- Employer directed employees to park in employer-provided lots on the east side of the highway; the lots were owned or leased and maintained by employer.
- The crosswalk and public roadway were not owned, operated, or controlled by employer; pedestrian-activated lights at the crosswalk were malfunctioning at the time.
- Harwood sought workers' compensation benefits; the ALJ found the injury occurred in a common area adjacent to the employer’s place of business after Harwood clocked out and thus was excluded from the statutory definition of course and scope of employment.
- The Workers’ Compensation Commission affirmed the ALJ. Harwood appealed, arguing the Commission omitted essential findings and misapplied 85A O.S. § 2(13).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Harwood's injury arose out of the course and scope of employment under 85A O.S. § 2(13) (specifically exception § 2(13)(c)) | Harwood contended prior judicial interpretations and factual circumstances (employer-directed parking, created walkways, warnings) support compensability | Employer argued the injury occurred after clocking out in a public crosswalk — a "common area adjacent" to the workplace excluded by § 2(13)(c) | Court held the statutory language is plain: the crosswalk was a common area adjacent to the employer's place of business and the exclusion applied, so injury was not compensable |
| Whether the Commission's order lacked essential findings of fact | Harwood asserted the ALJ/Commission omitted material factual findings that were necessary to apply § 2(13) correctly | Employer maintained the ALJ included essential stipulated facts and properly declined to credit extraneous testimony | Court held the ALJ made specific ultimate findings responsive to the issues; omitted testimony was properly treated as immaterial or not credible, so no missing essential findings |
Key Cases Cited
- Bober v. Oklahoma State University, 378 P.3d 562 (2016) (interpreted "adjacent" and held employer-owned parking/sidewalk were employer premises, so § 2(13)(c) exception did not apply)
- Brown v. Claims Mgmt. Resources, Inc., 391 P.3d 111 (2017) (reversed Commission where record showed the stairwell was employer premises, not an adjacent common area)
- Pina v. American Piping Inspection, 419 P.3d 231 (2018) (distinguished; did not address § 2(13)(c) because it was not implicated)
- Special Indemnity Fund v. Figgins, 831 P.2d 1379 (1992) (legislative adoption of a statutory definition can supersede prior judicial constructions)