*1 any jurisprudence state's extant nor enacted 2002 OK 8 securing by A lien life insurance an law. FLANNER, Petitioner, Inetta alimony obligation obligor's, is due and obligor's unpaid at the time of death does long-settled operate

not to breach the rule TULSA PUBLIC SCHOOLS and alimony An be set a sum certain. the Workers' alimony open-ended obligation that is and Court, Respondents. total be ascertained refer- whose sum can 95,223. No. creating ence to the terms of the decree unpaid lien to amount is not secure void Supreme Court of Oklahoma. Neither does a lien for indefiniteness. such Feb. (or provision public offend the common law alimony policy) extinguishes obligation As Corrected Feb. upon party remarriage the death of either recipient. lien here secures alimony that amount of which is due and

unpaid obligor's at the time of the death. It operate liability

does not his extend be-

yond statutorily contingencies cireumsecribed happening support alimony whose will lege. ex

cease The record deficient. It

provides vacating no basis the trial alimony clearly

court's award as con- (or

trary weight of evidence an abuse discretion).

of its granted upon certiorari On hus- petition, disposition

band's the trial alimony quest,

the wife's as modified affirmed; Appeals,

Court of Civil cause proceedings

stands remanded for further today's pronouncement. consistent HARGRAVE, C.J., WATT, V.C.J,

LAVENDER, KAUGER, BOUDREAU

WINCHESTER, JJ., concur.

{ SUMMERS, JJ., 19 HODGES and part part.

concur in dissent *2 Appeals, and remand

of the Court of Civil to the trial court. the matter employed T2 Flanner was Inetta County Public District as Tulsa School Among things, other her child nutritionist. get job required supplies out her for use in the snack bar where she cafeteria day on The record shows that worked. gone question had to the cafeteria she snacks get plates for the children's foam seizure, and epileptic suffered an where she severely a commercialcoffee fell into right arm. It shows also her burned anti- had failed to take her Ms. Flanner prescribed. seizure medication as %3 scheme Our employer provide must Worker's that an per accidental Compensation benefits for an employee "aris sonal employ ing of and in the course of the out ment, regard to fault a cause" of without The two injury. Supp.1997-11. O.S. not to be un are distinct and are elements "in synonymous. phrase derstood course of" relates to time cireumstances under which sustained, "arising phrase out of" while the in between contemplates a causal connection incident jury and the risks Labs, Optical Thomas v. Keith Hensel P.2d 201. a claimant's Whether "in of" and is the course "arises out of" generally question of fact employment court, and for the Worker's Tulsa, Jones, P.C., Jones, Wilson Susan "any competent evidence" standard OK, Attorney for Petitioner. However, where there applies. review Rosenstein, Bashaw, Rin- Fist & Catharine facts, question presented is disputed no Tulsa, OK, Attorney Respondent. gold, Monday, City Edmond one of law. undis P.2d 980. Here the SUMMERS, J., denying support the order puted facts do not review presented T1 The this issue to Ms. Flanner. employee whether an proceeding is does not School District compensation benefits cover worker's injured at work dispute that Ms. Flanner was when she fell injuries sustained at work burn job. It concedes that performing her while suffering an against large pot while of" her "in the course she was judge epileptic trial found seizure. The injury was not that her but contends and the. Court accident because result of a work related order, and we Appeals sustained the of Civil job, her but did not "arise out of" We find previously granted certiorari. have condition, her resulted to worker's employee is entitled relat- personal risk not epilepsy, was a opinion vacate the compensation benefits. We argues things ed to her The District fall. These factors include such as the employee being height, being that there was no causal nexus between her on a near ma- corners, chinery It con activity sharp moving work and her also or in a or. brought tends that her seizure was vehicle, falling as well as into such familiar negligence failing objects willful to take her medi such as A. tables bookcases. *3 activity Larsen, properly cation and that her work Compensation Workers' Law - pot.1 9.01(2001). did not involvethe coffee The Court denying the order Civil T9 The School District's reliance on our compensation worker's benefits. Foundry decision in Machine Marion & Redd, 30, Supply Co. v. Flanner seeks our review. 115 Okl. 241 P. 175 T6 Ms. She injury comes within the contends that her (1925), authority requiring uphold us to statutory parameters of risk-connectedness Flanner, compensation the denial of Ms. (10)(a), Supp.1997-3 requiring that 85 0.8. persuasive. not It is true that we Redd "[oluly injuries having as their source a risk vacated an award of to an em not but one that ployee injured who was at work when he connected with the conditions idiopathic resulting suffered an employ- arise out the shall deemed to epileptic seizure him which caused to fall into argues ment." that the She the syllabus by a fire. ap the Court does pot employ- hot coffee a condition of her was pear unqualified against to announce an rule injury, ment which contributed to her and falls, allowing compensation idiopathic for performing if she hadn't at work been provides: have been duties she would not burned injury Where the suffered was the result by when she fell. by of a fall epilepsy, caused an attack of injury arising such is not one out of the following 17 As the discussion of our employment, and not under clear, adopted case law makes we have (Comp. the Workmen's Law generally accepted pre rule that where a 7). St.1921, 7284, subd. existing idiopathic condition is the sole cause of a and no other factor worker's body however, opinion, T10 The operates to contribute to the no com discloses that the Court was not so absolute pensation is awarded. But where an position. in its The Court discussed at some idiopathic results from a concurrence of an Dowell, length English case of Wicks v. condition and hazard of some 225(1905), exception K.B. which set forth an Compare is allowed. Halli against compensation prop- to the rule under Alexander, 16, v. burton Services Wicks, er circumstances. the Court Co., 547 P.2d and Bittman Boardman granted employee compensation inju- 1977OK 560 P.2d 967. idiopathic ries from a fall where he had re- Larsen states that there is Professor ceived an which he would not have general agreement peculiar suffered but now that the effects of an situation to the job fall are if the condi- The court found his employment place employee quirement tions of created a hazard connect- job ed of the fall. Claimant's position increasing dangerous effects of a parties' analyze argue 1. The efforts to this which concerns a risk or condition perspective matter from the such authorities claimant, to the condition. distinction is well summarized Professor Lar- Inn, as Turner v. B Sew 2000 Ok 97, 18 P.3d Personnel, Express present ques- Corbett v. 'It son: should be stressed that the 932, Odyssey/Americare fall], causing although Oklahoma v. tion [internal weakness Worden, Ok 948 P.2d 309 and Ameri- often discussed in the same breath with unex- falls, different, plained basically since unex- Management can v. Burns, Systems plained-fall begin completely miss mark. Those cases are cases with a neutral "arising prong origin mishap, concerned with the out of" while fall cases begin origin admittedly person- factual situations which involve the causal con- with an which is nections between conditions and al which therefore some affirmative risks, employment-related prima neutral risks and contribution to offset the fa- regarding premises injuries showing well as origin." issues cie A. Law matter, 9.01(2001). premises injuries presented Compensation, § off in this of Workmen's ship of a was to unload coal from means mote cause was condition of man; regulate and we hydraulic crane and control must dissociate that idiopathic condition from the other facts into and out of the hold. bucket's movements required obliged and remember that he was carry duty he to run To out this was very the risk nature dangerous position of his stand close ment, dangerous and that hatchway, epi- edge of the where he had an brought about hatchway conditions leptic through seizure and fell injuries. sustaining into hold serious exception The Redd Court took notice of this T 12 The McKeever Court concluded: against compensability to the rule and distin- case, opinion, In our under the facts in this Wicks, guished holding explaining receiving hazard of such as is under facts of the there instant case peculiarly claimed herein is incident to the

. peculiar no hazard connected with the presence engine proximity of the in close so, doing of the fall or rendered. In service to employee and his duties. He was where recognized implicitly predicted the Court and required doing he was to be and was the generally accepted what would become the do, he was to doing work ordered and it in allowing compensation rule a condition when a satisfactory manner to his immediate employment contributes to the risk or superior, by probably and the method injury. aggravates the by performed.... which it could be Per- Drilling Egbert, 111 In McKeever v. epilepsy, vertigo, Co. sons seized with sun- 32, 33-34, the Court stroke, overpowering or other sudden and considering are, revisited Redd usually they and Wicks attacks where and it presence whether to award to an em- machinery, height, is the or or ployee who fell when he suffered a heat- peculiar some other condition to the em- against stroke and struck his the ployment head which increases hazard machinery working he had been on. Ad- but for the of which condi- dressing peculiar employment contention that person tion to the step heat stroke was the in the greater first line so seized would suffer no hazard of of causation of claimant's and the additional than one not so situated. fall therefore resulted from incident not falling The hazard of an employment, against engine associated with the the Court was one incident to the Wicks, injuries work, followed and held that proximity engine to claimant's fall arise out of injury actually and the received arose out ment and are when a condi- peculiar

tion to the increases Service, 113 Moten v. Chandler Well hazard, if and that it were not claimant was an condition, person that would not have light-headed field worker oil who had become quoted suffered the The Court ex- pneumonia, due to illness with and he fell Wicks, tensively including the follow- platform seven feet from a onto his face and ing explanation: arms. reviewed Court Redd present How it come does about length, McKeever at and vacated the order that case the accident arose out of the denying compensation. The Moter Court employment? Because the conditions observed that while Redd seems to be an of his the workman was unqualified ruling against compensability edge bound to stand on the what I falls, opinion actually dis- style precipice, a if in that he exception recognized cussed Wicks and its was seized with a fit he would almost peceu- allowing where a factor so, necessarily fall If over. that is liar to increases the hazard of necessary prox- accident was caused his injury. The followed Court then the reason- imity precipice, McKeever, Wicks, to the for the fall was ing of was based brought necessity about for his idiopath- and found that the from that standing position. Upon author- arising ic fall was out of ities, clear; employment, think the case is and accident it resulted from a factor since peculiar height. does not cease to be to the such because its vacated, opinion of the Court {14 authority line of Following the the trial court and the matter is remanded to Redd, Wicks, held and Moten we McKeever opinion. consistent with this proceedings Alexander, 1976 in Halliburton Services injury from an LAVENDER, {19 HARGRAVE, C.J., from claimant's resulted SUMMERS, BOUDREAU, JJ., KAUGER, pain from a back onset of intense sudden Concur. caused claimant's injury and arthritis which descending way HODGES, leg give as he was WATT,V.C.J., OPALA, stairway We found WINCHESTER, JJ., Dissent. necessity injury was contributed to HODGES, J., Watt, dissenting, with whom stairways, which was a ascend descend V.C.J., Winchester, JJ., join. Opala, peculiar factor to claimant's analysis "arising majority's 1 The compensation ben- recognized there that We jurisdictional of" element of the worker's out perfectly healthy are not limited to efits lamentably defective. This Court claim is inju- workers, accidental and held that where directly contrary has reached conclusion ry factor results from risk controlling statute and to decisions of and would not have occurred performed task on that this Court based statute. employment, it arises out of except for the to Okla T2 "Prior to 1986 amendment though the fall had its employment even *5 Act, Compensation homa Workers' Oklahoma idiopathy employee. origin in the primarily relied on the increased risk cases Manor, Inc., 1997 Sulphur 115 Elred v. doctrine to determine whether a risk arose 605, by APP relied on OK CIV However, the out of a worker's District, dispositive is not the School positional risk tests had peculiar risk and mat- claimant in that issue before us. While applied." Odyssey/Americare v. also been injury fall suffer as ter did Worden, 312. In 1997OK consequence epileptic seizure and was 1986, however, rejected Legislature the the competent compensation, there was denied positional peculiar risk doctrines in risk and in the seizure did not oceur evidence that favor of the increased risk doctrine. Id. work course "[oluly injuries provides The Act now premises. purely not having as their source a risk personal but one that connected much of T16 The School District makes shall be with the conditions Flanner to have the fact that Ms. was shown employment." out of the deemed to arise to take her anti-seizure medication as failed 1997). 3,(10)(a) (Supp. Okla. tit. Stat. responsibility for prescribed, and it aseribes that, pro has held as Since this Court the seizure her omission. Fault is not Act, by purely personal and neutral vided in law. issue Worker's e.g., are not covered. See American risks Supp.1997-11. 0.8. Burns, Management Sys. v. 117 The to Ms. Flanner oc 292, Odyssey, 948 P.2d at 312. curred within the course imagine a 13 It is difficult to risk that expected while she at a she was to be pre-existing purely personal more than a duties,. performing required was her epilepsy, medical condition. The worker's injury resulting from her was contributed falling, nothing and thus her risk of had to do pot presence of the hot coffee which employment. But with a risk of than peculiar employment. As was a factor to her accept mandated the obvious result Halliburton, supra, in P.2d at we stated tortuous, Act, majority on a embarks from a "Where accidental results journey through illogical, and irrelevant peculiar performed risk factor to the task thinly attempt law in a veiled common though employment, even arises out of the compensate the no matter the worker origin idiopathy the fall had its applicable law. employee." journey begins by burying first petition sought by claim- 1 and progeny 18 On certiorari and its footnote Burns dismissing analyzing them as neu- cases ant, Flanner, granted, previously Inetta pathic reality, implicitly these cases fall's trauma which one in risks. claimant's tral recognized Legislature's declaration expected circumstances would be to suffer. record, support only "ouly injuries having On this the law will as their the Act covers negative urged answer. No connection is purely personal." Freed source a risk not (and shown) law, none was to indicate that applicable the ma- from the confines of presence perime maker proceeds posi- jority then to resurrect severity ter of claimant's fall increased the peculiar English risk tests via tional risk of harm from her fall. In its pre-1986 cases common law Oklahoma scene of the accident the coffee did maker Ultimately, applied those tests. not elevate one iota the from a majority holds that "the of the cof- traumatic of claimant's fall. At pot" was a factor to the worker's fee most, presence may its have introduced some compen- that she such should minimal risk of thermal harm from claimant's sated. contact with heated surface of the electrical pot not a "condition of 5 The coffee was appliance liquid or with its contents. This thus, employment" and was not a risk factor requi claim suffers both a failure of injury. way in no the worker's It was proof as site well as from absence of activity. merely related to her work It was of compensability.2 theory acceptable just easily when could there she fell. She judge's would hence sustain the trial order injured by falling piece have been on a that denies for claimant's object present any other furniture or some idiopathic-fall operating setting; work nor was the worker The court's distorted tests evalua- just handling pot. It or even the coffee tion of true risks that affect an there. The cause of her was the fall passes all falls per- and that fall was caused hazards. It will make sonal medical condition. The coffee every liable for conceivable part resulting its cause. spontaneous occasioned inter- *6 majority may 16 As much as the wish to systemic again, nal failure. Once worker, compensate the this Court is re- opinion effectively has excised quired apply applicable the law. The law system legal from our man- statute's Legislature's be found in the declaration is to date that a arise out injuries resulting of claimant's compensable. refusing risks are not apply applicable has law this Court usurped Legislature's policy role of mak- judicial responsibility, ANATOMY OF LITIGATION

ing, abandoned its introduced confusion into what had become a [Flanner}, 4 3 Inetta Flanner a child nutri- settled matter of law. Schools, tion worker for the Tulsa Public [District], Independent 1 School District No. OPALA,J., WATT,V.C.J., with whom admit- 6 March 1998 when she HODGES, J., join, dissenting. tedly epileptic an suffered at work seizure today an The court holds and fell onto a coffee the school opathic-fall1 sustained when idi cafeteria, sustaining right arm. burns to her pot, she fell at the a coffee judge compensation The trial denied based compensable employment-relat arises finding precipitating her that the cause of pronounce fall, ed risk. I cannot accede to its injuries, Flanner's her presents ment. The this case stipu- critical issue "employment parties related." for resolution is its mere charac injuries during whether lated that Flanner's occurred quo ter or location at the the offend locus while she was the course ing posing regarded performing assigned coffee maker duties. The Court workplace-generated hazard that elevates of the trial [COCA] Civil order,. physical judge's This court vacates of harm from an idio 2. Part III. See discussion fall, 1. For the definition of an see infra infra note.

978 if the from which we determine opinion the accidental of risks and declares COCA sought harm for which fall to be requisite the haz connection has job.8 jurisprudence ards of Oklahoma II categories risk recognizes three associat injuries compensable: ed with claimed to be THE ARISING-OUT-OF-EMPLOYMENT (a) distinctly employment rel those that ESTAB- PROOF FOR ELEMENT OF (2) ated,10 purely personal to the those COMPENSABILITY LISHING (8) worker,11 and those that are neutral.12 compensa- on-the-job injury, to be T4 An tenders for our examination This case ble, and occur in the arise out of3 must both category-a« risk second employment5 The worker's course of fall.13 "in the course of" clauses "arise out of" and IIH meaning.6 Be interchangeable are not that Flanner's parties stipulated cause the AN IDIO- THE COMPENSABILITY OF employ in the course of harm occurred BE PATHIC FALL-INJURY IS TO solely analysis ment, calls this review A BY THE PRESENCE OF GAUGED proof. arising-out-of element HAZARD WHOSE WORKPLACE THE MAGNITUDE - ELEVATES - arising-out-of law's TRAUMA DANGER OF INCREASED contemplates a causal employment prong THE FALL FROM relationship the act claimant was between compen- and the em T6 The is not liable engaged in at the time on-the-job Pre consequences of risk.7 sation for the ployment-generated elements interplay accident occasioned a worker's assessment is an sented for our Office, City Monday, County 8. v. 1995 OK Edmond 3. v. Oklahoma Lanman Sheriff's Fudge Oklahoma, v. 980, 983; P.2d 795, 798-800; 37, ¶¶8-11, University OK 958 P.2d 673 P.2d Management Burs, Inc. American Systems, 288, 291; v. Keith 1995 OK Thomas Worden, Odyssey/Americare Oklahoma v. Labs, Hensel Optical 309, 311; Michael E. Utter, Arising Of ... Out Of And In The Course (a Lawyers publication Trial Oklahoma prong 4. The "in-the-course-of" Association, 1, 1996). Nov. See 1 Work- circumstances under time, lates to the (1996). 7.00 at 3-12 men's Law Lanman, supra injury is sustained. *7 Oklahoma State Univer- 3, 798; note at Decker v. category of risks are those so 10. In the first 1371, 1374; Thom- 152, 1988 OK 766 P.2d sity, employment they uniquely associated 3 at 202. as, note supra employment may regarded distinctly be as relat- (risks job solely per- that are connected with ed O.S.Supp.1997 § pertinent 85 3 5. The terms of related). Larson, employment 1 formance are (10) compensable: make 3-12 to 3-13. 9, note 7.10 at supra injuries arising only out . accidental of Among spontaneous 11. risks as herein in the course of ... systemic failures and crimes intentional- internal Only injuries having their source a defined. (who ly employee happens upon inflicted one that is risk not but by persons job) ill be on the who harbor with the conditions of connected category, is will. In this irrele- be deemed to arise out of shall to the harm note vant suffered. supra ment. 9, 7.30, 3-14). at 3-13 to added). {emphasis risks, 12. so-called neutral such as weather The indispensable elements 6. These two distinct and conditions, which are neither distinctly occupa- compensable injury understood of a are not to be questions personal, present fact to be tional nor synonymous. Municipal Hosp. Stroud v. Moo at Thomas, in each case. note 3 resolved supra 127, ¶ 5, 872, 874; ney, OK 933 P.2d Ameri employment-related 203. An intermixture 290-91; Management, supra note 3 at Thom can strangers with those that are to the work hazards note 3 at v. Commander as, 202; supra Richey personal char- milieu-because of their neutral or Mills, Inc., 521 P.2d acter-might regarded category. be as a fourth risks, supra note 9. 13. For see ¶ Lanman, note at at 799. - supra - danger accident injury from that kind of presence of fall.14 An location and the enhanced ponents.18 upon A fall a coffee mak if it is regarded as be com maximum, kind may, er at a alter by competent that a harm- evidence shown sustained,19 injury that but it neither is force, present perimeter dealing within heightens provides greater op the fall nor fall, workplace-generated haz created harm, portunity for whereas a worker's ele danger trauma ard that elevated vated the floor of the locus in above idiopathic a worker's from quo expose danger one to of a more being would equipment operated fall.15 When fall, from trauma.20 severity severe of the perimeter within the injury may viewed as increased This claim suffers from both a failure equipment-inflicted trauma.16 the enhanced requisite proof and from an absence of prove is on the claimant to The burden theory acceptable compensability. an degree workplace milieu elevated the claim, pressed The worker here not on non-compensable fall of the danger from a fall, the basis of an from increased by the claimant.17 nature sustained sought but to connect to the her harm coffee as a risk of pot's presence within the Today's pronouncement effectively perimeter danger-enhance- fall is not a statutory text ing It did not alter the condition eliminates the "aris hazard. ing-out-of" employment compensability re premises quo make the locus in quirement. ordinary objects for an fall's more hazardous If (in does, more, perimeter pot's position the school in the without victim. fall's compensable, every cafeteria) nonelevated floor surface make an at a may pass co-employees idiopathic-fall on their is at once where transformed into harm. This notion runs operate way from the cafeteria did not to and a work-related risk. There is abso- into collision with Oklahoma's clear create exposition employer's lutely appliance's here between the that exeludes from no nexus danger peculiar sponta "induced was that an indication of 14. An fall is one Company give internal condition." Boardman workplace neous would suffice to to an 181, ¶ 6, 821, 823; Eddy, words, award. In other the claimant proceeded Serv., 125, ¶ 7, Moten v. Chandler Well theory that a fall onto (an idiopathic fall is one appliance per se "resulting arising out of from causes the mental employee physical and not condition familiar, ordinary object A fall in the employment"). connected with the premises workplace fails to show that the am- guo dangers at the locus in stood elevated approved by appellate bient 15. Awards have been employee, heightened degree who courts where the suffered an idio to a the risks from an inter- fall, pathic working (and on a ladder or elevated nally spontaneously) induced worker's fall. equipment height, and sustained fall from that fall onto some common An ordinary, Moten, ensuing injury. which enhanced the su distinguishable object in the ¶ pra (idiopathic-fall injury at 154 note posi- that occurs to a worker who is drilling platform in a fall from a would highly tioned at some elevated work station or *8 be deemed because the hazard moving machinery nonmoving close to some or idiopathic fall increased environment. The lat- necessity standing work-connected of on an ele objects appreciably exposure to dan- ter elevate platform). vated utterly ger trauma. The record here is from producing heightened danger barren of risks a Compensability idiopathic-fall injury of an is 16. - from work-connected forces. by measuring the determined hazard force of impact risks on the from work-connected fall. is determined The injury" of fall "alteration in the kind of means 19. The perimeter of the and the conditions of the fall (from heat), likely exposure to here thermal harm distance from which claimant worked above the distinguished from a traumatic caused great is at a floor. When the claimant distance the floor. one's fall to floor, from the it is the work environment that of trauma on the increases the force might at 20. A fall onto a coffee maker most add body. possibility a thermal An of typically a traumatic im- lawyer fall causes harm from 17. The claimant's did view her bur- lawyer's position manner. The den in similar pact. liability injuries "personal risks.21 cases) makes on-the-job harm is re statement is as grossly element mistaken. Larson's risk When work-connected post-Fox analysis, incompatible it done as was with Oklahoma's appellate moved from Carrier,22 in v. National the court Fox (enacted legislation rein in this 1986 to every harm liable for arising-out-of becomes el- court's emasculation job. happens is so because This utterly that proof) of as it is inconsistent ement claimant or semi-conscious unconscious juris- weight extant national of have some nearly every will in prudence. short, statement can- Larson's Today's plain conclusion part body. expression of as a faithful not be viewed of Oklahoma's ly contrary to both the letter authority; it is rather aberration- national as to all Okla compensation law as well immunity abridgement al jurisprudence. In an obvi pre-Fox homa's liability falls. Foz, holding in response ous to this {11 by a continue to be bound must legislature amended interpretation explicit legisla sensu stricto post-Fozx In the wake of law 1986. risks as a source of tive exclusion prove that the risk changes, a claimant must compensationliability.25 purely per idiopathic-fall is not of an causally sonal, to some connected but y arise out of risk forces that work-related THAT THE THE COURT OVERLOOKS UNDERPIN- POSITIONAL-RISK

IV LIA- NINGS OF COMPENSATION BY BILITY STAND REJECTED AN ABER- RELIANCE TODAY'S UPON EXTANT CASELAW OKLAHOMA'S OF ABRIDGEMENT RATIONAL - THE IMMUNITY - EMPLOYERS argues T12 The claimant LIABIL- IDIOPATHIC-FALL FROM readily the coffee an area not accessi WITH ITY IS INCONSISTENT - public strengthens ble to the LAW OKLAHOMA'S STATUTORY that the accident contest was €{10 Today's reliance on Larson24 for the argument Her connected to positional-risk law's follows onto notion that a worker's latter, theory.26 abrogated which stands (such objects and book- familiar as tables corners, moving O.S.Supp.1997 machinery sharp in a provisions or of 85 21. See (10), supra note 5. vehicle". 24. court note relies supra 91, ¶ 12, 1053. Fox 22. 1985 OK 9.01[2](2010), which states pertinent part (a) every employee in travel for held "idiopathic falls onto such familiar house- master remains in the course objects compen- as tables and are hold bookcases throughout only during depar trip-except sable." For this notion Larson cites decisions (b) ture on a errand-and Virginia, Georgia, Florida, York, from New West travel, every injury whether at which occurs in Utah, and Missouri. hazard, tributable to a work-related or compensable. Id. at 1053. Fidelity requires law to this State's reject that we out-of-hand Larson's inclusion O.S.Supp.1997 § provisions See the of 85 (from holdings jurisdictions) number small (10), 5; Odyssey, supra at supra note 5 note the notion that falls Burns, ("The 313; supra at note at objects" familiar 'arising-out-of-employment' element of the claim employment-related, doctrine, that an positional "Under risk stemming opposed to one be said to arise out of if ... {the must show that risk .... the record not have but for the fact that the would occurred *9 obligations conditions or to the risks incident harm] was related causally placed position where he was employer"); claimant A. & his mission for the Larson force, injured by meaning "neutral" neutral Law L. Larson's Workers' 9.01(1), (1999) ("the distinctly § rule ... at 9-2 basic to the claimant nor neither LARSEN, employment." A. associated with the ... fall are [an the effects of idiopathic] places the em- Doctrine in Workmen's Com- if the The Positional Risk increasing dangerous ployee add- 1973 DUKE LJ. 761. [emphasis pensation, fall, height, near effects of such a such as on 3 at 291. ed]. Burns, note supra teachings Management American from the of the fall. There is hence Burns,27 Systems, longer Inc. v. is no avail no competent support compens- evidence to establishing injury's able for an causal nexus ability heightened dangers based on work-connected risks to the hazards of quo. locus in 3(7) § [now The 1986 amendment of 1 15 The court's reliance on Larson's aber- 3(10)],28 § which the source of a abridgement rational of an immu- compensable injury to be nity liability for falls to in- to be one that does not stem from a objects clude all falls onto workplace familiar risk-plainly contravenes this explicit - - is inconsistent with Oklahoma's statu- teachings yore court's in Fox.29Claimants tory mandate that calls exclusion from longer rely positional-risk can no theo compensability "personal risks." ry. re-adoption today plainly Its would allow today's 16 cannot adoption countenance ordinary risks to ambient be combined with of a distorted definition for enhanced work- creating falls for an accident's place risks. The return to the teach- compensability.30The law now demands that ings jurisprudence every of Fox will allow responsible risk for a claimant's be injury by spontaneous fall occasioned being per connected to the work systemic internal failure to become com- formed. If the risk stems from neutral or pensable, effectively scuttling thus sources, presence their must ex require standards. The latter ordinary ceed forces of hazards to which to arise out of claimant's general public exposed. Whether nonpersonal ment and stem from risk Flanner, injured, working when near sources. offending coffee maker is of no conse {17 There here no record quence. What makes a difference is the the court's conclusion that the trial judge perimeter absence of within forees refusing recovery. erred in to allow I would operated severity to increase the sustain denying compensation. her order harm from the fall she sustained. VI

SUMMARY

€14 An fall at an is not unless 2002 OK CR work-generated shown that interplay risks in Ryan McCARTY, Appellant, Owen (and internally with the spontaneously) in- duced fall elevated the exposure to harm. The burden onwas this claimant Oklahoma, Appellee. STATE danger-increasing to show that forces were unleashed No. F-1999-1599. of the coffee mak- perimeter er in the of Flanner's fall. No Court of Criminal of Oklahoma. such showing attempted. has been In this posed case scenario the coffee maker no Feb. ordinary more than an hazard of claimant's job opportunity milien-perhaps of in-

cluding exposure to thermal harm. This elevating severity

falls short of employee's injury 903 P.2d 288. that the source of the be from work-related, purely personal, a risk, than a (10), 0.S.Supp.1997 For the terms of 85 longer may No be viewed as supra see note 5. worker, compensable solely because the while in exposed the course of came to be holding, supra 29. For the Fox see note 22. some risk of harm that is not shown to be work- legislative amending 30. intent in the terms connected. (10) of 85 0.$.1981 was doubtless to require