 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Flanner v. Tulsa Public Schools2/12/2002
73 OBJ 539
__ P.3d __
ON CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS, DIV. NO. 3
Inetta Flanner, claimant, sought an award for injuries sustained in a fall at work when she had an epileptic seizure and fell into a coffee pot while performing her assigned work tasks. The trial court and the three-judge review panel denied compensation. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the order. On Certiorari sought by claimant,
THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS' OPINION IS VACATED, THE ORDER OF THE THREE-JUDGE REVIEW PANEL IS VACATED AND THE MATTER IS REMANDED TO THE TRIAL COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION.
The issue presented by this review proceeding is whether an employee may recover worker's compensation benefits for burn injuries sustained at work when she fell against a large coffee pot while suffering an epileptic seizure. The trial judge found the injury was not compensable and the three-judge review panel of Workers' Compensation Court affirmed. The Court of Civil Appeals sustained the order, and we have previously granted certiorari. We find that the employee is entitled to worker's compensation benefits. We vacate the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals, vacate the order of the three-judge panel and remand the matter to the trial court.
Inetta Flanner was employed by the Tulsa County Public School District as a child nutritionist. Among other things, her job required her to get supplies out of the cafeteria for use in the snack bar where she worked. The record shows that on the day in question she had gone to the cafeteria to get foam plates for the children's snacks where she suffered an epileptic seizure, and fell into a commercial coffee pot and severely burned her right arm. It shows also that Ms. Flanner had failed to take her anti-seizure medication as prescribed.
Our statutory scheme requires that an employer must provide Worker's Compensation benefits for an accidental personal injury sustained by an employee "arising out of and in the course of the employment, without regard to fault as a cause" of the injury. 85 O.S. Supp. 1997 ยง 11. The two elements are distinct and are not to be understood as synonymous. The phrase"in the course of " relates to the time and place or circumstances under which the injury was sustained, while the phrase "arising out of" contemplates a causal connection between injury and the risks incident to employment. Thomas v. Keith Hensel Optical Labs, 1982 OKL 120, 653 P.2d 20.
Whether a claimant's injury "arises out of" and is "in the course of" employment is generally a question of fact for the Worker's Compensation court, and the "any competent evidence" standard of review applies. However, where there are no disputed facts, the question presented is one of law. City of Edmond v. Monday, 1995 OK 132, 910 P2d 980. Here the undisputed facts do not support the order denying compensation to Ms. Flanner.
The employer School District does not dispute that Ms. Flanner was injured at work while performing her job. It concedes that she was "in the course of" her employment, but contends that her injury was not the result of a work related accident because it did not "arise out of" her job, but rather resulted from an idiopathic condition, her epilepsy, which was a personal risk not related to her employment. The District argues that there was no causal nexus between her work activity and her injury. It also contends that her seizure was brought on by her willful negligence in failing to take her medication properly and that her work activity did not involve the coffee pot. The Court of Civil Appeals sustained the order denying worker's compen
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Oklahoma Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|