St. Anthony Hosp. v. James

• Decision Date: 20 December 1994
• Docket Number: No. 83814,No. 1,83814,1
• Citation: 1994 OK Civ.App. 176,889 P.2d 1279
• Parties: 1994 OK CIV APP 176 ST. ANTHONY HOSPITAL, Petitioner, v. Vera JAMES, 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

Page 1279

889 P.2d 1279

1994 OK CIV APP 176

ST. ANTHONY HOSPITAL, Petitioner, v. Vera JAMES, and The Workers' Compensation Court, Respondents.

No. 83814.

Released for Publication by Order of the Court

of Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 1.

Court of Appeals of Oklahoma,

Division No. 1.

Dec. 20, 1994.

Proceeding to Review an Order of the Workers' Compensation Court, Noma D. Gurich, Judge.

SUSTAINED.

Teresa Cauthorn, K. David Roberts, Oklahoma City, for petitioner.

David L. Medford, Oklahoma City, for respondents.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

CARL B. JONES, Judge:

Petitioner, St. Anthony Hospital, brings this review proceeding from an award of temporary total disability and medical benefits awarded the Claimant, Vera James, by a trial judge of the Worker's Compensation Court. At the time of the injury, Claimant was employed as a licensed practical nurse. Claimant's injury was the result of a slip and fall incident at the entrance to the hospital, which fractured the head of her left radial bone, (left elbow). The injury occurred on her day off work. She had returned to the workplace to pick up her paycheck and accomplish other errands. After falling down, she took some flowers to a patient and picked up her check before she sought medical treatment at the employer's facility.

Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the injury, which occurred on the employer's premises, did not arise out of or in the course of employment. This motion was overruled and the allegation in this court is in a similar vein, that is, the act of returning to the employer's premises to receive a salary check is not an act arising out of and in the course of employment. Overruling this motion to dismiss is assigned as error in the petition in error and brief, as well as error in finding there was a causal connection between the act engaged in at the time of the injury, and the employment requirements. These two errors present the same issues for purposes of this appeal: That is, did the trial judge err in determining the injury arose out of and in the course of employment so as to be covered by the compensation act?

Petitioner argues that under Oklahoma law an on-the-premises injury does not arise out of employment when it occurs while the employee is on a mission in furtherance of a private purpose. Thomas v. Keith Hensel Optical Labs, 653 P.2d 201 (Okla.1982). Also it is submitted this injury cannot have arisen in the course of employment. It is stated that this cause does not fulfill the requirement that the act leading to the compensable injury, occurring in the course of employment, must occur within the period of employment at a place where the worker reasonably may be, and while he is fulfilling a duty of his employment or something incidental thereto. Smith's Estate v. Hearon, 424 P.2d 970 (Okla.1967). These cases state general principles of law which are applicable. Respondent asserts there is specific authority from this jurisdiction, and others, which hold that an injury on the premises during the specific act of returning to the place of employment to acquire a wage check is deemed to have arisen out of and in the course of employment. Solo Cup v. Pate, 528 P.2d 300 (Okla.1974). This case notes the employer held claimant's paycheck until she returned uniforms after terminating her employment. There the trip was required by the employer, and thus does not present the exact scenario as we are faced with. Here, the employee had alternate means to receive her pay. According to the record, she could have utilized direct deposit or she could have picked up the check a day later, when she was working.

These types of cases have been considered from two perspectives. On one hand the issue has been determined to be, or not to be, cognizable in compensation court and then there are instances where the case has been held to be, or not to be, maintainable in a court of general jurisdiction as a premises liability action. A non-exhaustive search discloses when the action is brought as a common law tort action, the preponderance of the instances result in a finding that the exclusive remedy is in a compensation forum. Representative of these are: Ventura v. Albertson's, 856 P.2d 35 (Colo.App.1993); Brooks v. Wal-Mart Stores, 783 S.W.2d 509 (Mo.App.1990); Glory v. Zuppardo's Economical Supermarket, Inc., 532 So.2d 933 (La.App.1988); Jones v. Jay Truck Driver Training Center, Inc., 736 S.W.2d 468 (Mo.App.1987); Phillips v. Unicare Amelia Island, Inc., 458 So.2d 50 (Fla.App.1984). Cases where compensation jurisdiction is denied frequently involve additional factors which negate the necessary, arising out of, or in the course of requirement, such as a fight causing the injury, Peterson v. Williams, 175 So.2d 364 (La.App.1965), or other circumstances which take the case from the employment sphere, such as becoming a store customer after picking up the check, Zarka v. Burger King, 206 Mich.App. 409, 522 N.W.2d 650 (Mich.Ct.App.1994).

Cases where the compensability issue is tried in the forum of a compensation tribunal have also reached differing results. Some of these cases determine collecting pay is covered under the act and indicate the importance of other facts on the determination. See, Farris v. Huston Barger Masonry, Inc., 780 S.W.2d 611 (Ky.1989), injury occurred while in carpool transport by foreman to designated location to receive pay; Oliver v. Faulkner Wood Co., 531 So.2d 675 (Ala.Civ.App.1988), employee enroute to spot where he was directed for pay by employer; INA of Texas v....