 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Central Plains Construction v. Hickson5/26/1998
Mandate Issued: June 26, 1998
RELEASE FOR PUBLICATION BY ORDER OF COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS
CENTRAL PLAINS CONSTRUCTION and THE STATE INSURANCE FUND, Petitioners, and C.J. TATE & SONS and THE STATE INSURANCE FUND, Counter-Petitioners,
v.
DENNIS LEVERNE HICKSON and the WORKERS' COMPENSATION COURT, Respondents.
PROCEEDING TO REVIEW AN ORDER OF A THREE-JUDGE JUDGES OF THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION COURT
SUSTAINED
After he was injured in an attack by a co-worker, Claimant Dennis Hickson filed a workers' compensation claim naming Central Plains Construction (Central Plains) as his employer. Subsequently, Central Plains moved to join C.J. Tate & Sons (Tate), contending Tate was the actual employer. Tate ultimately agreed that Claimant was its employee but argued that it was engaged in a joint venture with Central Plains on the project on which Claimant worked.
After hearing, the Workers' Compensation Court trial Judge entered an order containing special findings that Central Plains and Tate were joint venturers on a construction project for the Oklahoma Department of Transportation four miles west of Mangum, Oklahoma, and that Claimant worked on that project. The trial Judge also found that Claimant was injured in the course of his employment with the joint venture and that Claimant's injury arose out of his employment, and entered an order directing Central Plains and Tate to pay Claimant benefits for temporary total disability, permanent partial disability, and disfigurement. An en banc appeal resulted in a three-Judge panel order modifying the amount of benefits due Claimant, but leaving intact the remainder of the order. This review proceeding followed.
Claimant's claim arises from injuries due to an attack upon him by a co-worker, L, with whom Claimant was sharing a two-bed motel room. The room had been rented by Joe Skeith (who was identified by Claimant and a representative of Tate as owner of Central Plains) for the use of the workers from Central Plains and two or three regular employees of Tate during the Mangum project. On October 19, 1995, the workers were paid, and, as was their custom, several of them had dinner and then went out to socialize that evening. L became "rowdy," "ornery" and aggressive towards other patrons while they were at a club. Skeith asked Claimant and another worker to take the man back to the motel and gave them the keys to his personal vehicle to do so. They took L to the motel and returned to the club for further socializing.
Claimant later returned to the motel room and found L and a partially clothed woman in the room. L promptly left (leaving his room key behind), and after she dressed, the woman also left the room. Claimant prepared for bed and went to sleep. In the early hours of the morning L returned, and Claimant let him back in the room. The next thing Claimant remembers was awakening to find himself being attacked. L, apparently in a delusional state, was astride Claimant on the bed. Claimant struggled with L and sustained a knife wound to the chest. Skeith, who had been asleep in the next room, was awakened by the struggle and Claimant's calls for help. Skeith summoned help, and Claimant was taken to hospital.
DID CLAIMANT'S INJURY ARISE OUT OF AND IN THE COURSE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT?
Whether an injury is incurred in the "course of" employment relates to the time, place or circumstances under which the injury was sustained. Thomas v. Keith Hensel Optical Labs, 1982 OK 120, 653 P.2d 201. An injury "arises" out of employment when there is a causal connection between the injury and the risks incident to
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Oklahoma Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|