Legarde-Bober v. Oklahoma State University
2016 OK 78
| Okla. | 2016Background
- Petitioner was an OSU/OKC employee who taught at the campus child development lab and was required to report to the lab in person for a 9:00 a.m. shift.
- Employer issued Petitioner a parking permit and required her to park in the campus parking lot adjacent to the lab building; the lot and sidewalks were owned and maintained by OSU/OKC.
- On March 4, 2014, in icy conditions, Petitioner slipped on campus sidewalk/curb adjacent to the lab building as she walked from her car toward the building before clocking in and was injured; security footage captured the fall.
- Employer’s on-site supervisor completed an Employee Injury Report noting the fall occurred on employer premises and initially provided medical treatment and temporary disability benefits, but later denied compensability.
- The ALJ and the Workers’ Compensation Commission denied additional benefits, holding the injury was not within the statutory “course and scope of employment”; Petitioner appealed to the Oklahoma Supreme Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the injury occurred within the statutory "course and scope of employment" under 85A § 2(13) | Petitioner: walking from employer-issued parking on employer premises to the workplace, while required to report, is an activity in furtherance of employment and on employer premises | Employer: injury occurred before clocking in in a parking area and thus falls within statutory exclusions (going-and-coming/parking-lot exclusion) | Held: Injury was within the course and scope of employment; employee was on employer premises and acting in furtherance of employer’s business when injured |
| Whether the § 2(13)(c) parking-lot exclusion applies when employee has not yet clocked in | Petitioner: exclusion covers parking lots adjacent to but not on employer premises; here the lot was on employer premises so exclusion doesn't apply | Employer: exclusion applies to injuries in parking areas before clock-in regardless of ownership | Held: Exception (c) does not apply because the lot/sidewalk were on employer premises (not merely adjacent) and employer admitted premises status |
| Whether statutory definition of course and scope is a question of law or fact for de novo review | Petitioner: statutory interpretation is legal and reviewed de novo | Employer: (implicit) defer to Commission’s factual findings/interpretation | Held: Statutory interpretation is a question of law reviewed de novo; the Commission’s contrary interpretation was legally incorrect |
| Whether the court should address constitutional challenges to the AWCA raised by Petitioner | Petitioner: alleged due process/access-to-courts violation of AWCA | Majority: unnecessary to reach constitutional issues because statutory interpretation resolved compensability | Held: Court did not decide constitutional claims; concurrence urged addressing them as presented |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Protective Health Servs. v. Vaughn, 222 P.3d 1058 (Okla. 2009) (standard for review of legal questions in administrative appeals)
- Samman v. Multiple Injury Trust Fund, 33 P.3d 302 (Okla. 2001) (statutory construction principles)
- Coates v. Fallin, 316 P.3d 924 (Okla. 2013) (treatment of constitutional challenges to the AWCA)