WASHINGTON v. ANDERSON WHOLESALE

WASHINGTON v. ANDERSON WHOLESALE
2000 OK CIV APP 15
996 P.2d 497
71 OBJ 1045
Case Number: 93070
Decided: 12/03/1999
Mandate Issued: 02/11/2000

TOMIKA WASHINGTON, PETITIONER,
v.
ANDERSON WHOLESALE, AMERICAN NTERSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, and the WORKERS' COMPENSATION COURT, RESPONDENTS.

PROCEEDING TO REVIEW AN ORDER OF THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION COURT;
 HONORABLE RICHARD BLANCHARD, JUDGE.

SUSTAINED.

Bret A. Unterschuetz,Arthur H. Adams, P.C., Tulsa, Oklahoma, For Petitioner
John N. MacKenzie, Whitten, MacKenzie, Whitten & Barnhart, Tulsa, Oklahoma, For Respondent.

JOPLIN, J.

¶1 Petitioner Tomika Washington (Claimant) seeks review of an order of the trial court denying her compensation for asserted accidental personal injury to hands arising out of and in the course of the employment with Respondent Anderson Wholesale (Employer). In this proceeding, Claimant asserts the trial court erred as a matter of both fact and law in denying the claim, all evidence clearly demonstrating a compensable job-related "accidental injury."

¶2 Claimant and a co-employee became embroiled in a workplace altercation in which Claimant averred she was the victim and the co-worker was the aggressor. Claimant's supervisor intervened, apparently terminated Claimant from the employment, and directed Claimant to immediately leave the premises. As Claimant left the premises, the glass exit door shattered, and broken glass from the door cut Claimant's hands.

¶3 Claimant commenced the instant action to recover benefits for the alleged job-related accidental injury to her hands. At hearing, Claimant testified that as she sought to leave the Employer's premises in accord with her supervisor's instructions, and using the normal entrance/exit door to the workplace, her hands slipped off of the door's "push bar," causing her hands to strike and shatter the door glass. Employer presented testimony of three co-employees arguably establishing that Claimant, in a fit of rage, struck the glass door with both hands, causing the door glass to shatter and injure Claimant.

¶4 Upon consideration of the testimony and evidence, the trial court denied the claim, finding that "[C]laimant has not sustained her burden of proof and persuasion that she sustained an accidental personal injury which arose out of and in the course of her employment." Claimant now seeks review in this Court.

[996 P.2d 499] ¶5 We find no Oklahoma authority directly on-point with the facts of the case before us. Where the issue has been addressed, however, other jurisdictions uniformly hold that where, in a fit of anger and rage, a claimant strikes a door or other solid object with his/her hand or fist and suffers injury, the claimant has not sustained a job-related "accidental" injury. Mauer v. Employers Insurance Co. of Nevada, 983 P.2d 411, 413 (Nv. 1999). Accord, Klein v. The New York Times Co., 721 A.2d 29 (N.J. 1998); Glodo v. Industrial Comm'n of Arizona, 955 P.2d 15 (Az. App. 1997). These courts reason "that an intentional violent act that produces a foreseeable and reasonably expected self-injury is not an 'accident'" under established workers' compensation law. Mauer, 983 P.2d at 413-414; Klein, 721 A.2d at 30-32; Glodo, 955 P.2d at 18-19. See also, Wing v. Cornwall Industries, 418 A.2d 177 (Me. 1980) (where, in fit of anger, claimant slams hand into the wall fracturing two fingers, held, evidence sustained determination that the injury did not arise in the course of employment.)

¶6 This analysis is clearly consistent with Oklahoma workers' compensation law, 85 O.S. §11(A)(1), excepting from coverage "[a]n injury occasioned by the willful intention of the injured employee to bring about injury to himself or another." This analysis is also clearly consistent with the precedential definition of "accidental injury" employed by the Workers' Compensation Court. See, City of Nichols Hills v. Hill, 1975 OK 39, ¶¶22-23, 534 P.2d 931, 934-935. We adopt that analysis as expressive of Oklahoma law, and hold that an intentionally violent act that produces a self-injury which the claimant expected or should have expected does not result in a compensable "accidental injury" under the Oklahoma Workers' Compensation Act.

¶7 In the present case, Employer presented evidence arguably establishing Claimant intentionally struck the glass door with her hands or fists, breaking the glass in a fit of rage. We thus find competent evidence in the record supporting a conclusion that Claimant suffered no compensable accidental injury contemplated by the Oklahoma Workers' Compensation Act. See, e.g., Parks v. Norman Municipal Hospital, 1984 OK 53, ¶12, 684 P.2d 548, 550.

¶8 The order of the trial court is therefore SUSTAINED.

¶9 BUETTNER, P.J., concurs; GARRETT, J., concurs in result.