 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Moore v. City of Norman5/11/1999
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA
NOTICE: THIS OPINION HAS NOT BEEN RELEASED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE PERMANENT LAW REPORTS. UNTIL RELEASED, IT IS SUBJECT TO REVISION OR WITHDRAWAL.
MOORE v. CITY OF NORMAN
___P.2d___
CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS DIVISION II
Workers' Compensation Court denied benefits to police officer, who shot himself while holstering his handgun, finding accidental injury did not arise out of and in course of employment. Court of Civil Appeals sustained.
CERTIORARI PREVIOUSLY GRANTED; OPINION OF COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS VACATED; CAUSE REMANDED TO WORKERS' COMPENSATION COURT.
A workers' compensation claimant seeks certiorari review of an opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals. That opinion sustained a finding by the Workers' Compensation Court that his accidental injury did not arise out of and in the course of his employment.
Robert M. Moore (Claimant) is a police officer for the City of Norman (City). His right calf and right ankle were injured when he accidentally shot himself. The injury occurred at Claimant's home between 10:20 pm and 10:30 pm as he holstered his handgun. Claimant was in the process of putting on his uniform to report to a 10:45 pm lineup at the police station. The wound required hospitalization.
Claimant participated in the Individually Assigned Vehicle Program. The program authorizes police officers to take a marked vehicle home. This is done in order for the public to identify the police presence in neighborhoods and to enhance officers' response time in an emergency. One requirement of the program is that officers have a department approved handgun with them when the vehicle is in use. Claimant testified at trial that he had been instructed not to leave valuables, including weapons, in an unoccupied police vehicle. City presented no testimony from any of Claimant's superiors to dispute his testimony.
A trial Judge's determination of whether an injury arose out of and in the course of employment is reviewed under the "any competent evidence" standard. Parks v. Norman Municipal Hospital, 684 P.2d 548, 549 (Okla. 1984). Those findings may be disturbed on appeal only if unsupported by competent proof. Id. at 552. The facts of this case demonstrate nothing to support the lower courts' denial of benefits.
The Workers' Compensation Court found that Claimant's injury did not arise out of and was not sustained in the course of his employment. It specifically held that Claimant was not performing the duties of his employment at the time of his accidental injury. The Court of Civil Appeals sustained the decision holding that the circumstances of Claimant's injury did not fall into an exception to the general rule that injuries incurred going to and from work do not ordinarily arise out of and in the course of employment. This Court granted certiorari review.
Oklahoma law requires an employer to pay compensation only for "accidental personal injury sustained by the employee arising out of and in the course of his employment, without regard to fault . . . ." Okla. Stat. tit. 85, ยง 11 (Supp.1997). The term "arise out of employment" contemplates the causal connection between the injury and the risks incident to employment. Thomas v. Keith Hensel Optical Labs, 653 P.2d 201, 202 (Okla. 1982). The term "in the course of employment" relates to the time, place, or circumstances under which the injury is sustained. Id. The two requirements are distinct and are not synonymous. American Management Systems, Inc. v. Burns, 903 P.2d 288, 291 (Okla. 1995).
Claimant's injury arose out of his
Page 1 2 Oklahoma Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|