Lead Opinion
T1 First the trial judge and then a three-judge panel determined that a Workers' Compensation claimant was not entitled to recover for his injury because it was the result of his voluntary рarticipation in horseplay in the workplace. Our sole issue on certiorari is whether that decision is supported by competent evidence of record. We find that it is, and vacate the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals holding otherwise.
12 The claimant, Curtis Canida, sought worker's compensation disability for injury to his back, allegedly suffered when a co-worker forcefully bumped him on the upper back as he walked past the co-worker to retrieve an implement claimant needed to complete a work assignment. The testimony of the coworker was that claimant and the co-worker had an on-going ritual of bumping shoulders which they had done "a hundred times." On the day in questiоn, claimant raised his arm as he walked by the co-worker. Claimant testified that he did so as a protective measure because the co-worker was well known for engaging in horseplay contact. Co-worker testified that he interpreted the raised
{ 3 The trial court considered this evidence and concluded that under these facts, and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, claimant had been a "voluntary participant in horseplay" which precluded him from being entitled to recovery under the horseplay rule adopted in Horn v. Broadway Garage,
T4 The three-judge panel in today's case unanimously affirmed the order denying compensability, and claimant sought appellate review. The Cоurt of Civil Appeals reversed the Workers Compensation Court, based on its determination that "under the undisputed material facts" claimant was not a "voluntary participаnt in horseplay." The Court of Civil Appeals concluded the Workers Compensation Court decision was erroncous as a matter of law. It found the evidence establishеd that claimant was trying to avoid the prankish contact and was only attempting to extricate himself from the co-worker's horseplay, and therefore he was not prеcluded from recovery under Horn. Viewing the evidence as it did, the Court of Civil Appeals found the matter was controlled by the rule set forth in J.C. Hamilton v. Bickel, 174 OK1. 32,
15 The employer contends on certiorari that the Court of Civil Appeals mischaracter-ized this matter аs one in which the facts were undisputed, and engaged in a de novo review, ignoring the reality that the evidence was disputed, and that conflicting inferences or theories аs to compensability arose and were argued by the parties. It argues that, the Court of Civil Appeals impermissibly substituted its own judgment on the facts for that of the Workers Compensаtion Court.
16 It is well settled that in' an appeal from a three-judge panel of the Workers Compensation Court, the appellate court must review it under the any-comрetent-evi-denee test, under which the court's responsibility is limited to canvassing the facts, not with the object of weighing conflicting proof to determine where the preponderance lies, but only to ascertain whether there is any competent evidence to support the tribunal's decision. Parks v. Norman Mun. Hospital,
T7 Employеr correctly points out that even when facts before the Worker's Compensation Court are not in dispute, when conflicting inferences arise from those facts it is for the trier of fact to decide which theory is more likely to be true. In Lanman v. Oklahoma County Sheriff's Office, 1998 Ok 37,
T8 Here the evidence showed that claimant walkеd past the co-worker with his arm up. While this fact is not disputed, there are different inferences which may be drawn from it. Claimant testified that he raised his arm to protect himself from рossible horseplay by the co-worker who was known to engage in such behavior. Other testimony supported the theory that claimant and the co-worker had engaged in аn ongoing ritual of shoulder-bumping horseplay before, and claimant was initiating that ritual when he raised his arm at the co-worker. The trial judge was free to disbelieve claimant's subjective statement of the defensive nature of his intent. Competent evidence supported the trial judge's finding that claimant's injury was not compensable as not arising out of his employment, and that it resulted instead from his voluntary participation in bhorseplay. The three-judge panel agreed, and affirmed. The decision of that Court, thus, is not vulnerable to appellate reversal.
19 On certiorari previously granted, the Court of Civil Appeals' opinion is vacated, and the claim's denial by the Worker's Compensation Court is sustained.
Notes
. The Lanman case also provides a useful discourse on compensation law's "arising-out-of" and "in-the-course-of" employment dichotomy.
Concurrence Opinion
concurring.
11 The legal norm that governs the employer's compensation liability to this claimant is stated in Terry Motor Company v. Mixon,
{2 The dispositive issue formed by the evidence presented below was whether the claimant could be сonsidered "aggressor, initiator or voluntary participant" in horseplay. From the critical record proof before us opposite inferences may be drawm as to claimant's involvement in the happenings immediately preceding the harm-dealing event. One of these inferences points to claimant's non-participation аnd the other would tend to show that he had invited the coemployee's engagement in a previously established routine of mutual combat on the job. The choice to be made between these opposite inferences was for the trier of fact-the trial tribunal. Thomas v. Keith Hensel Optical Labs.,
T3 I henee concur in today's opinion and in the court's disposition of the claim.