D. Daniels Masonry v. Daniels, No. 93,029.

• Court: United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma
• Writing for the Court: CARL B. JONES, Presiding
• Citation: 999 P.2d 1124,2000 OK CIV APP 36
• Parties: D. DANIELS MASONRY and Maryland Casualty Company, Petitioners, v. David D. DANIELS and The Workers' Compensation Court, Respondents.
• Docket Number: No. 93,029.
• Decision Date: 25 February 2000

999 P.2d 1124
2000 OK CIV APP 36

D. DANIELS MASONRY and Maryland Casualty Company, Petitioners,
v.
David D. DANIELS and The Workers' Compensation Court, Respondents

No. 93,029.

Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 1.

February 25, 2000.

John C. Vance, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Petitioners.

David D. Daniels, Norman, Oklahoma, Pro Se.

Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 1.

OPINION

CARL B. JONES, Presiding Judge:

¶ 1 Respondent, David D. Daniels, filed a workers' compensation claim for multiple injuries

999 P.2d 1125

he received in an automobile accident on February 2, 1997. Daniels, who operated a masonry business as a sole proprietorship, listed himself as an employee on the claim form he filed with the Workers' Compensation Court. Petitioner, Maryland Casualty Company (Insurer), denied liability, arguing that Daniels was the owner of the company and not covered under the terms of the workers' compensation insurance policy. Additionally, the Insurer argued that the injuries did not arise out of and in the course of employment

¶ 2 The trial court held a hearing on the issue of coverage and ruled that Daniels was a covered and insured sole proprietor under the policy. The Insurer appealed to a three-judge panel of the Workers' Compensation Court. The panel unanimously affirmed the trial court's order without modification. After a trial on the merits, the trial court found Daniels had sustained a compensable injury and awarded permanent partial disability benefits. The Insurer seeks review of the Order determining coverage.

¶ 3 The Insurer contends the Workers' Compensation Court erred in finding Daniels was an employee as defined by 85 O.S. Supp.1997 § 3(6) which provides in pertinent part:

"... Sole proprietors, ... are specifically excluded from the foregoing definition of "employee," and shall not be deemed to be employees as respects the benefits of the Workers' Compensation Act. ... Sole proprietors, ... may elect to include the sole proprietors, ... if otherwise qualified, by endorsement to the policy specifically including them under any policy of insurance covering benefits under the Workers' Compensation Act. When so included the sole proprietors, ... shall be deemed to be employees as respects the benefits of the Workers' Compensation Act ..."

The question of whether one is an employee under the Act is a jurisdictional fact, and we must decide that issue based...