Griffin v. Baker Petrolite Corp.9/17/2004
present case, the risk of exposure to airborne chemicals was a risk of the employment. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, we discern no evidence arguably showing that Defendant actually intended to inflict emotional distress on Plaintiff. Nor is there evidence, which, in our view, arguably demonstrates that Defendant knew or was substantially certain Plaintiff would suffer emotional distress as a result of either the on-the-job exposures, or Defendant's failure to more quickly abate the problem. The evidence, it seems clear to us, demonstrates nothing more than Defendant's negligence in failing to abate the ethylene oxide leaks more quickly than it actually did, but even if negligent or grossly so, such negligence is insufficient to demonstrate either Defendant's specific intent to injure, or Defendant's substantial certainty that injury would occur.
Moreover, a mental injury which "accompanies" a compensable, job -related physical injury is compensable under the Oklahoma Workers' Compensation Act. See, 85 O.S. Supp. 2000 §3(10)(c); Shivel v. Wexford Health Sources, 2003 OK 25, -10, 66 P.3d 414, 416; Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Reinholtz, 1998 OK 11, , 955 P.2d 223, 226. So, where a worker sustains a physical injury accompanied by a mental injury in the same job-related occurrence, the worker's remedy for both the physical injury and the accompanying mental injury lies in the workers compensation court. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 1998 OK 11, , 955 P.2d at 226. And, where a claimant pursues his workers' compensation remedy for his physical injury, and he is bound to then timely assert his claim for accompanying emotional injury which, he knows, arose out of the same working conditions which caused his physical injury. See, e.g., Sneed v. McDonnell Douglas, 1999 OK 84, , 991 P.2d 1001, 1006; Barnes v. Indian Terr. Ill. Oil Co., 1935 OK 128, , 41 P.2d 633, 635.
In the present case, the evidence uncontrovertedly demonstrated that Plaintiff suffered a physical injury arising out of and in the course of his employment with Defendant, for which he received an award of workers' compensation benefits. The uncontroverted evidence also showed that the emotional distress of which Plaintiff complained clearly bore a causal relationship to the terms and conditions of his employment, and arose out of the same exposure(s) which caused his physical injury. Plaintiff's physical and emotional injuries were the product of a job -related risk. Because Plaintiff's emotional distress arose out of the same job-related exposures and accompanied the job-related occupational disease, Plaintiff's sole and exclusive remedy for his emotional injury lay in workers' compensation, and Plaintiff's election to pursue and accept workers' compensation benefits for the same negligently caused injuries bars prosecution of the instant suit. Dyke, 1993 OK 114, , 861 P.2d at 302.
On the uncontroverted facts, the trial court concluded that the exclusive remedy provision of the Oklahoma Workers' Compensation Act, §12, and Plaintiff's election of workers' compensation remedies, barred prosecution of Plaintiff's claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. We agree. The order of the trial court granting the motion for summary judgment of Defendant is therefore AFFIRMED.
HANSEN, J., and MITCHELL, P.J., concur.
Page 1 2 3 4 Oklahoma Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|