Garrison v. Bechtel Corp.

• Decision Date: 24 January 1995
• Docket Number: No. 82767,82767
• Citation: 1995 OK 2,889 P.2d 273
• Parties: Mickey GARRISON, Petitioner, v. BECHTEL CORPORATION, Crum & Forster, Commercial Insurance, and the Workers' Compensation Court, Respondents.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

Page 273

889 P.2d 273

1995 OK 2

Mickey GARRISON, Petitioner, v. BECHTEL CORPORATION, Crum & Forster, Commercial Insurance and the Workers' Compensation Court, Respondents.

No. 82767.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

Jan. 24, 1995.

Certiorari to the Court of Appeals, Division III; Jerry Salyer, Workers' Compensation Judge.

The respondent, Bechtel Corporation (Bechtel/the employer), was awarded a construction project in Arkansas. Pursuant to an agreement with an Arkansas labor union, Bechtel informed the union that it needed workers for the project. The Arkansas union contacted a Tulsa labor union seeking workers to refer to the employer. The Tulsa union advised the petitioner, Mickey Garrison (Garrison/the employee), an Oklahoma resident, of the job in Arkansas. While working at the job site, Garrison injured his back. The employer's insurance carrier paid the employee temporary disability benefits and provided the employee with medical treatment. Subsequently, Garrison filed for workers' compensation benefits in Oklahoma. Bechtel's insurance carrier requested a hearing on the issue of whether Oklahoma had jurisdiction. After the hearing, the workers' compensation judge, Honorable Jerry Salyer, dismissed and denied the employee's claim for compensation finding that Oklahoma was without jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals sustained, determining that there was competent evidence to support the Workers' Compensation Court's finding. We find that: 1) because the issue of whether an employee was hired within Oklahoma is a jurisdictional question, appellate courts--rather than accepting the findings of the Workers' Compensation Court if supported by competent evidence--must review the record de novo to determine whether an employer-employee relationship existed in Oklahoma; and 2) because the facts do not support an authorized hiring in Oklahoma, the Workers' Compensation Court lacks jurisdiction.

CERTIORARI PREVIOUSLY GRANTED; COURT OF APPEALS OPINION VACATED; WORKERS' COMPENSATION COURT SUSTAINED.

Pamela K. Cornett, Tulsa, for petitioner.

Andrew Nestor, III, Tulsa, for respondents.

KAUGER, Vice Chief Justice.

Two issues are presented: 1) whether appellate courts, when reviewing the Workers' Compensation Court's determination of whether a worker was hired in Oklahoma, may utilize the any competent evidence standard of review; and 2) whether the worker was hired within Oklahoma. We find that: 1) because the issue of whether an employee was hired in Oklahoma is a jurisdictional question, appellate courts--rather than accepting the findings of the Workers' Compensation Court if supported by competent evidence--must review the record de novo to determine whether an employer-employee relationship existed in Oklahoma; and 2) because the facts do not support an authorized hiring in Oklahoma, the Workers' Compensation Court lacks jurisdiction.

FACTS

The Bechtel Corporation (Bechtel/the employer), an Arkansas construction company, was awarded a construction project in Arkansas. Bechtel hired some workers for the project through a referral procedure which was governed by an agreement between Bechtel and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers labor union (IBEW).¹ The agreement provided that if Bechtel needed workers for a project, it would contact the local labor union in Arkansas to seek referrals for employment. If the local union was able to find available workers to apply for employment at Bechtel, the union was obligated by the agreement to fill Bechtel's request for applicants by sending them to Bechtel. In the event the local union was unable to refer job applicants to the employer within forty-eight hours, Bechtel could seek qualified workers from any source it chose. Bechtel considered any worker who was referred to the project as an applicant for a job, until the worker passed security procedures and the worker was hired by them. Under the labor agreement, the authority of the Arkansas union was limited to referring prospective employees to Bechtel. The Arkansas union had no authority to hire employees for Bechtel and Bechtel had the right to refuse to hire any applicant sent by the union.

Pursuant to its agreement with the IBEW, Bechtel contacted the local union in Little Rock, Arkansas, and informed the union that it needed workers. The Arkansas union contacted a labor union in Tulsa, Oklahoma, seeking applicants for the Bechtel project. The local union in Tulsa contacted Mickey Garrison (Garrison/the employee), an Oklahoma resident and a member of the Tulsa union, concerning work at the Bechtel construction project in Arkansas. The Tulsa union informed the employee that he needed to go to the labor union in Little Rock, Arkansas, and pick up a referral slip the next day before going to the construction site. When Garrison arrived in Arkansas, he filled out some paperwork for the Arkansas union, obtained a referral slip from them, and went to the construction site.

At the construction site, Garrison handed in his referral slip and the employer sent him to training.² The employee did not receive On May 29, 1992, Garrison filed for workers' compensation benefits in Oklahoma alleging that: 1) although he was injured in Arkansas, the employment agreement was made in Oklahoma; and 2) because he was hired in Oklahoma, the Oklahoma Workers' Compensation Court had jurisdiction to award disability benefits pursuant to 85 O.S.1991 § 4.³ The insurance carrier denied that the employee was hired in Oklahoma and requested a hearing on the issue of whether Oklahoma had jurisdiction.

any pay or reimbursement for expenses for the trip from Tulsa to Arkansas or from the Arkansas union to the construction site. Garrison's pay began once he arrived at Bechtel and was sent to training. While working at the job site in Arkansas, Garrison injured his back on March 7, 1992. Bechtel and its insurance carrier were notified of the injury on March 9, 1992, and March 25, 1992, respectively. On March 26, 1992, the insurance carrier began paying temporary disability benefits and began providing medical treatment to the employee pursuant to Arkansas law.

After the hearing, the Workers' Compensation Court dismissed and denied Garrison's claim for compensation finding that: 1) neither the Arkansas union nor the Tulsa union had authority to hire employees for Bechtel; 2) the function of the Arkansas union was to provide applicants to the employer which could be accepted or rejected exclusively by the employer; 3) the final acceptance of the employee's application for employment was at the job site in Arkansas; and 4) because the employee was employed and injured in Arkansas, Oklahoma was without jurisdiction. The employee appealed and the Court of Appeals affirmed. It found that the Workers' Compensation Court's determination that the employee was hired in Arkansas was supported by competent evidence and that the court did not err in denying the employee's claim for disability benefits. We granted certiorari on September 13, 1994.

I.

BECAUSE THE ISSUE OF WHETHER AN EMPLOYEE WAS HIRED WITHIN OKLAHOMA IS A JURISDICTIONAL QUESTION, APPELLATE COURTS--RATHER THAN ACCEPTING THE FINDINGS OF THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION COURT IF SUPPORTED BY COMPETENT EVIDENCE--MUST REVIEW THE RECORD DE NOVO TO DETERMINE WHETHER AN EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP EXISTED IN OKLAHOMA.

In his petition for certiorari, the employee argues that the Court of Appeals erred when it reviewed the Workers' Compensation Court's determination that the employment contract was entered into in Arkansas by utilizing the any competent evidence standard of review. Under this standard, review is confined to a search of the record for any competent evidence which supports the compensation court's decision.⁴ We do not weigh conflicting evidence in order to determine where the preponderance lies, but only to ascertain whether the trial court's decision was supported by competent evidence.⁵

Ordinarily, findings of fact made by the Workers' Compensation Court are conclusive and binding on appellate courts unless they have been ascertained to lack support in competent evidence.⁶ However, when a question before the Workers' Compensation Court involves a jurisdictional fact issue, this Court and the Court of Appeals must decide that issue based upon a de novo review of the record.⁷ Under this standard--rather than accept the fact findings of the Workers' Compensation Court as conclusive--we review the entire record, weigh the evidence, and make independent fact findings without deference to the fact findings or to the legal rulings made by the compensation court.⁸ The question of whether an employer-employee relationship exists has long been recognized as a jurisdictional fact question subject to independent review.⁹

Pursuant to 85 O.S.1991 § 4, either an injury occurring in Oklahoma or an employment relationship forming within this State, is unequivocally and unmistakably a requisite to jurisdiction of the Workers' Compensation Court.¹⁰ The question of where the employment contract was entered into is nothing Prior to 1955, the Workers' Compensation Court did not have jurisdiction to hear and determine a claim for workers' compensation benefits when a worker received an injury outside the state of Oklahoma.¹² In 1955, the Legislature amended the workers' compensation laws to extend the jurisdiction of the Workers' Compensation Court when the employment contract was entered into in Oklahoma, regardless of where the injury occurred.¹³

more than an inquiry into a claimant's employment status in Oklahoma which requires a de novo review of the record.¹¹ However, language in our prior decisions is somewhat confusing as to the applicable standard of review to be applied when an appellate court reviews the Workers' Compensation Court's determination of whether a worker entered into an employment contract within Oklahoma. Consequently, we find it necessary to examine these prior...