Opinion ID: 1282579
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the dichotomous division of the statutorily-mandated job nexus into the in the course of and arising out of components

Text: Today's pronouncement ignores and obfuscates the statutory distinction between two critical elements of an employer's liability in compensation. A compensable accidental injury must both occur in the course of as well as arise out of the worker's employment. While a worker on travel assignment is indeed throughout its duration  both day and night  in the course of his employment, it does not follow that every injury suffered by a traveling worker eo ipso arises out of employment. When unrelated causally to the efforts of employment, a harm-dealing episode of choking must be attributable to a purely personal risk. It may not be viewed differently from some spontaneous internal systemic failure, rupture or breakdown, an idiopathic injury, or a simple attack of appendicitis. Benefits under the Workers' Compensation Act [Act] [2] are allowed only for accidental injuries that both arise out of and occur in the course of employment. This two-part requirement is categorically imposed by 85 O.S. 1981 § 3(7). [3] Both requirements must be met before an accidental injury can come within the purview of the Act. [4] The phrases arising out of and in the course of are not synonymous. The former refers to the origin or cause of the accident and the latter to the time, place and circumstances under which it occurred. [5] A truck driver is required to travel from place to place, to a place away from his permanent residence or to some employer designated business location. An employee in travel status is in the course of his employment from the moment the journey begins until its very end  even during meals, rest periods, and sleep, unless the course is interrupted by a purely personal errand. [6] Measured by these narms of compensation law, the claimant in this case clearly was in the course of his employment when he stopped to eat breakfast and choked. This much is axiomatic. The controverted issue, then, is whether the choking incident arose out of his employment.