Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Hamilton v. Dub Richardson Ford
Citations: 970 P.2d 1196; 1998 OK CIV APP 180; 69 O.B.A.J. 4342; 1998 Okla. Civ. App. LEXIS 149; 1998 WL 884587Docket: No. 91,616
Court: Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma; November 9, 1998; Oklahoma; State Appellate Court
Claimant seeks a review of a three-judge panel’s decision that vacated a trial court's award of benefits for a work-related injury. The panel determined that Claimant's broken hip did not arise out of his employment because he was allegedly on a personal mission for lunch. However, it was established that Claimant fell in the employer-provided break room while clocking out for his scheduled lunch hour, a requirement for employees. The panel's conclusion misapplied the legal doctrines of "substantial deviation" and "personal mission," as Claimant was engaged in an employment task when injured. Previous case law supports that employees are covered for reasonable activities related to their work schedules. Unlike a cited case where an employee left for personal business outside of break time, Claimant was actively clocking out when he fell, indicating that the injury arose during the course of employment. The order of the three-judge panel is vacated, and the case is remanded with directions to reinstate the trial court’s award of benefits.