 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Furr v. Wal-Mart6/23/1998
Mandate Issued: October 15, 1998
RELEASED FOR PUBLICATION BY THE OKLAHOMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS
BRENDA JOYCE FURR, Petitioner, v. WAL-MART, NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE and THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION COURT, Respondents.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING TO REVIEW ORDER OF THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION COURT THREE-JUDGE judges
Honorable Richard L. Blanchard, Trial Judge
REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS AND FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
Claimant seeks review of order of a Workers' Compensation Court three-Judge panel affirming the trial court's denial of compensation based on a finding that the injury did not arise out of employment. After a review of the record on appeal and applicable law, we reverse.
Claimant Brenda Joyce Furr filed a Form 3 seeking workers' compensation benefits for an injury occurring during her work shift for Employer Wal-Mart, when she went to the bathroom and broke her right hand when she hit it against a toilet tissue dispenser. Employer did not dispute that the accident and injury occurred as maintained by Claimant but resisted her request for compensation because it did not believe the injury was work-related.
After hearing, the trial court denied the claim based on a finding that the injury did not arise "out of her employment." The trial court specifically noted that it accepted Claimant's testimony that the injury to her right hand occurred while she was using the restroom at work but stated that "going to the bathroom is a purely personal condition which is found by the Court to be unrelated to her employment." Claimant appealed the trial court's denial. A three-Judge panel, by a split vote, affirmed the trial court's order. Claimant now seeks review of that order in this court.
Whether an injury arises out of a claimant's employment is generally an issue of fact, and this court on review of factual findings must affirm if there is any competent evidence to support the order subject to review. City of Edmond v. Monday, 1995 OK 132, , 910 P.2d 980, 982. However, herein there are no disputed facts, and, in such an instance, a question of law is presented. Oklahoma Petroleum Workers' Compensation Ass'n v. Mid-Continent Cas. Co., 1994 OK CIV APP 107, 887 P.2d 335, cert. denied. It is well established that defining the law is the role of the appellate court; thus, "it independently reviews questions of law." Id. at , 887 P.2d at 337.
Claimant proposes that the lower court erred in finding that going to the bathroom was a purely personal mission and in holding that a bathroom injury does not arise out of employment. She maintains that compensability for injuries connected with seeking and using toilet facilities within the premises of the employer has been accepted uniformly. She asserts that she was not free to choose which bathroom to use, and, because such relief is a necessary corollary to the employment of human beings, the employment status was unbroken.
The court in American Management Systems, Inc. v. Burns, 1995 OK 58, 903 P.2d 288, cited by the trial court in its denial of benefits, does deal with the issue of personal risk. The Burns court stated:
"Oklahoma's jurisprudence has long recognized that a compensable work-related injury must both (1) occur in the course of and (2) arise out of the worker's employment." 85 O.S.1991 ยง 3(7). These two distinct elements are not to be understood as synonymous. . . . The determinative question here is whether there is a causal nexus between [the injury] and the risks of his employment. The "arising-out-of- employment" element of the claim requires that an injury be employment-rel
Page 1 2 3 Oklahoma Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|