Driver Management, Inc. v. Miller, 85912
| Decision Date | 14 November 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,No. 85912,85912,1 |
| Citation | 908 P.2d 815 |
| Parties | 1995 OK CIV APP 137 DRIVER MANAGEMENT, INC., Petitioner, v. Gerald MILLER and the Workers' Compensation Court, Respondents. Court of Appeals of Oklahoma, Division |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma |
Petitioner Driver Management, Inc. (Employer) seeks review of an order of a three-judge panel of the Workers' Compensation Court which affirmed the trial court's order granting benefits for temporary total disability (TTD) to Respondent Gerald Miller (Claimant). In this proceeding, Employer asserts error of the court in denying Employer's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, Claimant's injury having occurred in the State of Texas, the parties having entered into the employment contract other than in the State of Oklahoma, and the parties' employment contract expressly providing for submission of workers' compensation claims in the State of Nebraska.
Employer, with its home office in Omaha, Nebraska, sought truck drivers and to that end placed advertisements in various newspapers. Claimant, an experienced truck driver living in Paoli, Oklahoma, read one of Employer's advertisements and called Employer's toll-free phone number to obtain an application. Employer sent Claimant an application, which Claimant completed and returned to Employer. Upon receipt and processing of Claimant's application, Employer telephoned Claimant at his home in Paoli, and advised Claimant that his employment application had been approved. Employer directed Claimant to go to Employer's place of business in Dallas, Texas, to take a physical examination, a Department of Transportation written examination, a road test, and to attend an employment orientation class, upon completion of which, Employer would reimburse Claimant for his expenses.
Claimant went to Employer's place of business in Texas, took the required examinations, and attended the orientation class, where Claimant filled out yet another application and completed various forms, including one titled, "Consent to State of Nebraska Workers' Compensation." That document provided, inter alia:
... [T]hat all ... decisions to hire employees and contracts for hire are made only in Omaha, Nebraska and that an employer/employee relationship between prospective employee and [Employer] can be entered into only in Omaha, Nebraska;
... [T]hat, if [Employer] hires prospective employee, prospective employee will be a State of Nebraska based employee and all employees of [Employer], regardless of where employees claim resident, are subject to Nebraska's Workers Compensation Jurisdiction and Laws;
... [T]hat prospective employee hereby waives jurisdiction of any other state other than the State of Nebraska for Workers Compensation benefits and protection[, and] prospective employee consents to jurisdiction of the State of Nebraska for Workers Compensation coverage and benefits.
Claimant subsequently passed the required examinations, commenced his truck driving duties, and Employer reimbursed Claimant for his travel expenses to Dallas.
Some four months later, Claimant sustained an alleged employment-related injury in Texas. Claimant then commenced the instant action by filing of a Form 3 in the Oklahoma Workers' Compensation Court. Employer entered a special appearance and filed a motion to dismiss, asserting no jurisdiction of the Oklahoma Workers' Compensation Court. In support, Employer argued that the parties entered no employment contract in Oklahoma, that Claimant sustained injury in Texas, and that Claimant expressly consented to jurisdiction of the Nebraska courts and waived jurisdiction of the Oklahoma courts in workers' compensation matters.
After hearing, and on submission of the parties' testimony and evidence, including medical evidence indicative of job-related injury and disability, the trial court entered its order finding Claimant had suffered compensable injury and awarded benefits for TTD. Employer appealed to a three-judge panel, which affirmed the trial court's order. Employer now seeks review in this court, asserting (1) no Oklahoma contract for hire, depriving the Oklahoma Workers' Compensation Court of jurisdiction to adjudicate the claim, and (2) validity of the "choice of forum" clause in the parties' employment contract.
We first note that Oklahoma statute mandates application of Oklahoma workers compensation law to work-related injuries sustained by an employee hired in this state regardless of where the injury occurred:
... [A]ll the provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act of this state, Sections 1 et seq. of this title, shall apply to employers and to employees, irrespective of where accident resulting in injury may occur, whether within or without the territorial limits of the State of Oklahoma, when the contract of employment was entered into within the State of Oklahoma, and the said employee was acting in the course of such employment and performing work outside the territorial limits of this state under direction of such employer.
85 O.S.1991 § 4. The Oklahoma Workers' Compensation Court thus has jurisdiction to entertain claims filed under the Oklahoma Workers' Compensation Act where the employer and employee enter the employment contract within the state. See, e.g., Cherokee Lines, Inc. v. Bailey, 859 P.2d 1106 (Okla.1993). However, "the issue of whether an employee was hired within Oklahoma is a jurisdictional question, [and the appellate courts] ... decide independently based upon a de novo review of the record, without deference to the findings of fact or to the legal rulings made below, whether an employer-employee relationship existed in Oklahoma." Garrison v. Bechtel Corp., 889 P.2d 273, 280 (Okla.1995).
On this issue, we further recognize that "an employer-employee relationship 'is created by contract, either express or implied, or by the unequivocal acts of the parties recognizing the relationship.' " Cherokee Lines, Inc. v. Bailey, 859 P.2d 1106, 1110 (Okla.1993); Beall v. Altus Public School Dist., 632 P.2d 400, 401 (Okla.1981). And generally, a contract of employment "is deemed to have been made where the final assent is given." Cherokee Lines, Inc., 859 P.2d at 1110; Chapman v. Union Equity Cooperative Exchange, 451 P.2d 3, 5 (Okla.1969). Stated otherwise, for purposes of determining Oklahoma Workers' Compensation Court jurisdiction under 85 O.S. § 4, "[t]he place where the contract was made is the controlling issue." Daleo, Inc. v. Edmonds, 884 P.2d 544, 546 (Okla.1994); Hartford Ins. Group v. McDaniel, 526 P.2d 941, 942 (Okla.1974).
In analyzing the place-of-contract issue, the Oklahoma Supreme Court in Daleo recognized several previous cases. Cherokee Lines, Inc., supra; Hartford Ins. Group, supra; Sims v. United Bridge and Iron, 402 P.2d 911 (Okla.1965); Armstrong v. Guy H. James Const. Co., 402 P.2d 275 (Okla.1965). In Cherokee Lines, Inc., ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Triad Transp., Inc. v. Wynne
...laws. See, e.g., Garrison, 1995 OK 2, 889 P.2d 273;Daleo, Inc. v. Edmonds, 1994 OK 122, 884 P.2d 544;Driver Mgmt., Inc. v. Miller, 1995 OK CIV APP 137, 908 P.2d 815. ¶ 9 When there are “mere formalities” or “contingent acts” that are performed in another state after final assent, the date o......
-
Skilstaf/Stafco, Inc. v. Linda Burckhalter, Workers' Compensation Court
...the offer in Oklahoma, the contract of employment may be held to have been entered into in Oklahoma. Cf. Driver Management, Inc. v. Miller, 908 P.2d 815, 818 (Okl.App.1995), citing General Electric Co. v. Folsom, 332 P.2d 950 (Okl.1958). In Miller, a company representative of an Arkansas em......
-
Cummings v. Jones Truck Lines
...act regardless of where the injury occurred when the employment contract was entered into within this State. Driver Management, Inc. v. Miller, 1995 OK APP 137, 908 P.2d 815. It has been said that the question of the existence of a hiring within the State is a jurisdictional question, and t......
-
Alexander v. Transport Distribution Co.
...or contingent acts to be performed by the employee at some future time and somewhere other than Oklahoma. Driver Management, Inc. v. Miller, 1995 OK CIV APP 137, 908 P.2d 815(discussing General Electric Co. v. Folsom, supra.) If indeed it was company policy that employment was contingent up......