Manpower v. Lewis

Manpower v. Lewis
1992 OK CIV APP 130
840 P.2d 1276
63 OBJ 3436
Case Number: 79113
Decided: 10/20/1992

 
MANPOWER AND CNA INSURANCE, PETITIONERS,
v.
TAMMA R. LEWIS AND THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION COURT, RESPONDENTS.

Proceeding to review an order of the Workers' Compensation Court; Kimberly E. West, Judge.

SUSTAINED.

Anne Livingston, Pierce, Couch, Hendrickson, Johnston & Baysinger, Oklahoma City, for petitioners.
Patrick C. Ryan, Phillip D. Ryan, Boettcher & Ryan, Oklahoma City, for respondents.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

BAILEY, Presiding Judge

¶1 Petitioners Manpower and CNA Insurance (Manpower) seek review of the Trial Court's order awarding compensation benefits to Respondent Tamma R. Lewis (Claimant). Manpower asserts the Trial Court erred in finding that Claimant's injury arose out of and in the course of her employment, and holding Manpower and its insurer, CNA, responsible therefor.

¶2 Manpower is in the business of providing temporary employees to employers in need of extra help. Manpower pays the employees' wages, and maintains Workers' Compensation insurance covering its employees. Manpower hired Claimant to provide temporary services to Manpower clients. In 1990, Manpower agreed to provide Oklahoma Publishing Company (OPUBCO) with temporary employees and sent (apparently among others) Claimant, advising Claimant to follow the directions of her OPUBCO supervisors. Claimant worked in the maintenance department at OPUBCO for approximately nine months, but always picked up her paychecks at the Manpower office.

¶3 On September 14, 1991, Claimant took part in the "Corporate Challenge," a city-wide amateur sporting event, as a member of the OPUBCO team. While participating in the "tug-of-war," Claimant injured her knee.

¶4 Claimant subsequently commenced the instant action by filing of her Form 3, naming Manpower as respondent-employer and claiming compensable injury to her knee arising out of and in the course of the employment. The Trial Court held Claimant's knee injury compensable, finding Claimant had been "encouraged to participate in the sporting event by her supervisors or the persons she perceived to be her supervisors." Manpower appeals.

¶5 In this proceeding, Manpower asserts that Claimant's injury did not arise out of/in the course of the employment. Specifically, in its first proposition of error, Manpower argues that Claimant sustained her injury during voluntary participation in social or recreational activities unrelated to her employment with Manpower, and that Manpower did not require or compel Claimant to participate in the social/recreational activity so as to render Manpower liable.

¶6 The Oklahoma Supreme Court has previously held that where an employer "expressly or impliedly induces participation [in a social or recreational activity], or makes the activity come within the orbit of employment duties," the social/recreational activity falls within "the course of the employment" for Workers' Compensation purposes.

¶10 HANSEN, V.C.J., and HUNTER, J. concur.

Footnotes:

1 See, Pepco, Inc. v. Ferguson, 734 P.2d 1321 (Okl.App. 1987); Oklahoma Natural Gas Co. v. Williams, 639 P.2d 1222 (Okla. 1982).

2 Oklahoma Natural Gas Co., 639 P.2d at 1224.

3 Oklahoma Natural Gas Co., 639 P.2d at 1225.

4 See, e.g., Thomas v. Keith Hensel Optical Labs, 653 P.2d 201, 203 (Okl. 1982); Pearl v. Associated Milk Producers, Inc., 581 P.2d 894 (Okl. 1978).

5 Although not dispositive, apparently OPUBCO had won first place in the "Corporate Challenge" tug-of-war competition for four years, and Claimant's reputation as an athlete played some part in her "recruitment."

6 Oklahoma Natural Gas Co., 639 P.2d at 1224.

7 See, 85 O.S. 1991 § 11 (principal employer liable in Workers' Compensation); Ishmael v. Henderson, 286 P.2d 265 (Okl. 1955).

8 85 O.S. 1991 § 11 ; Ishmael, 286 P.2d at 268.