Title: LANMAN v. OKLAHOMA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE

State: oklahoma

Issuer: Oklahoma Supreme Court

Document:

LANMAN v. OKLAHOMA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE  LANMAN v. OKLAHOMA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE 1998 OK 37 958 P.2d 795 69 OBJ 1887 Case Number: 87628 Decided: 05/12/1998 Mandate Issued: 06/11/1998 Supreme Court of Oklahoma DAVID LANMAN, Petitioner, vs. OKLAHOMA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, and the WORKERS' COMPENSATION COURT, Respondents. ON CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS, DIV. 4. ¶ 0 Claimant's proceeding to review an order by a three-judge panel [panel] of the Workers' Compensation Court which affirmed a trial judge's denial of the claim. The Court of Civil Appeals vacated the panel's decision and remanded the claim with directions to award benefits. On certiorari granted upon the respondent's petition, THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS' OPINION IS VACATED AND THE CLAIM'S DENIAL BY THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION COURT IS SUSTAINED. G. Patrick Garrett, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma for Petitioner; Aletia Haynes Timmons, Assistant District Attorney, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma for Respondent. OPALA, J. ¶ 1 The single issue on certiorari is whether the three-judge panel's [panel] decision that claimant's injury did not arise out of and in the course of his employment stands supported by competent evidence. We answer in the affirmative. I THE ANATOMY OF LITIGATION ¶ 2 David Lanman [Lanman or claimant] was employed as a reserve officer for the Oklahoma County Sheriff's Office [sheriff or employer]. He was assigned to a position of "outside rover." His duties consisted primarily of (a) patrolling the outer perimeter of the county jail to prevent escapes, (b) providing security for the jail, county courthouse building, employee parking lot and surrounding areas and (c) transporting prisoners between jails and to obtain medical services. ¶ 3 On July 22, 1995 Lanman arrived at work at 6:00 p.m. for a thirteen-hour shift. He was in uniform, armed, and in a marked patrol car. The car was equipped with one radio frequency, which allowed him to call and hear only those calls that were transmitted by the sheriff's dispatcher. Around 11:00 p.m., Lanman was in his patrol car en route to dinner when he heard on his personal police scanner a radio transmission from an Oklahoma City Police Department [OCPD] officer. The transmitting officer was advising the OCPD dispatcher that he had heard gunshots and was going to check out the area, which was approximately eight blocks from claimant's location. In a second transmission, the same officer stated that he was "out on two subjects." Without notifying the sheriff's dispatcher, claimant proceeded to the transmitting officer's location to provide backup. Before arriving at the scene, claimant broadsided a vehicle that crossed into his path. ¶ 4 Lanman, who received injuries in the accident, brought this compensation claim. Employer maintained that Lanman's injury did not "arise out of" and "in the course of" his employment. The trial judge agreed and denied the claim. ¶ 5 On certiorari granted upon the employer's petition, we vacate today COCA's opinion and sustain the panel's order. II THE STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶ 6 Whether an employee's injury arises out of or occurs in the course of employment presents an issue of fact to be determined by the trial judge. III ¶ 8 A compensable work-related injury must both arise out of10 and occur in the course of11 the worker's employment.12[958 P.2d 799] The two clauses "arise out of" and "in the course of" are not interchangeable.13 The Arising-Out-Of Prong ¶ 9 The arising-out-of prong contemplates a causal relationship between the act engaged in at the time injury occurs and the requirements of employment. It calls for an assessment of the interplay of risks to determine if the injury for which compensation is sought has the requisite connection to the job.14 Oklahoma jurisprudence recognizes three categories of risk associated with injuries claimed to be compensable:15 (1) those so uniquely associated with employment that they may be regarded as distinctly employment related;16 (2) those purely personal to the worker;17 and (3) those that are neutral.18 An intermixture of employment-related hazards with those that are strangers to the work milieu might be regarded as a fourth category.19 The In-The-Course-Of Prong ¶ 10 The in-the-course-of prong, which relates to the time, place or circumstances under which the injury is sustained, tests whether, at the critical moment, claimant was on a mission for the employer.20 An employee is deemed to have deviated from the course of employment when that individual embarks on a purely personal errand or one that takes the worker beyond the assigned perimeter of the claimant's mission for the employer.21[958 P.2d 800] Only the second prong - that of in the course of employment - is implicated by the record on review. Nobody questions that had the claimant's pursuit of the shooting incident been within his mission for the employer, the traffic accident that ensued could be considered an employment-related risk.22 ¶ 11 Although the panel's order does not state whether its denial rests either on the arising-out-of prong or solely on the in-the-course-of prong, we need not remand this cause for a more specific finding. IV ¶ 13 According to employer, Lanman was on a personal mission at the time that his injuries were sustained. As a reserve officer, he had received minimal law enforcement instruction. He was not trained to respond to emergency calls. The Claimant's Theory ¶ 14 Lanman argues that a uniformed reserve deputy sheriff has a statutory duty to "preserve and enforce public peace," citing ¶ 15 Although claimant insists the facts are undisputed, the record reveals a sharp disagreement over the scope of a reserve officer's duties. If Lanman's proof is accepted as credible, he had the discretion to respond to any situation he believed to be an emergency and to leave his assigned post without first clearing that action with the dispatcher. On the other hand, if the sheriff's evidence is believed, the claimant's action demonstrates what is known in agency law as a detour or deviation from the course of employment. ¶ 16 Even if we assumed that the evidence was uncontroverted, the record, taken as a whole, indicates the presence of two equally reasonable but conflicting (or inconsistent) inferences that may be drawn. The tribunal chose one of the two that were available. SUMMARY ¶ 17 The employer's responsibility for compensation is governed by the policy provided in the Workers' Compensation Act. For settlement of liability under the Act we must look to the prerequisites of that enactment. ¶ 18 On certiorari granted upon the respondent's petition, the Court of Civil Appeals' opinion is vacated and the claim's denial by the Workers' Compensation Court is sustained. ¶ 19 KAUGER, C.J., and HODGES, LAVENDER, SIMMS, HARGRAVE, OPALA, WILSON and WATT, JJ., concur; ¶ 20 SUMMERS, V.C.J., concurs in part and dissents in part. FOOT