In an unusual move, the State Supreme Court recently not only overturned decisions of an administrative law judge but of the Oklahoma workers’ Compensation Commission and the State Court of Civil Appeals in a case involving an injured pipeline worker.
The court overturned the three previous rulings in the case of Octavio Pina who was an employee for American Piping Inspection Inc. and injured in a 2015 traffic crash.
The ALJ, the Workers Comp Commission and the Court of Civil Appeals had ruled Pina was not technically “on the job” when he was injured while traveling to a rig site.
But the State Supreme Court ruled otherwise and ordered previous rulings vacated in favor of Pina.
Pina used his own truck and was paid $50 a day to carry company equipment. The company agreed to pay for gasoline as long as he refueled daily at the firm’s designated gas station, which he did the day of the accident.
American Piping contended workers were not on the job until they attended a daily safety briefing and signed a log. Pina met his supervisor at the gas station then proceeded to the rig site 30 miles away when he had the crash and was medi-flighted to a hospital.
Pina never arrived at the drilling site that morning but was paid for a full day of work. When Pina filed a claim for Workers’ Comp benefits, the company denied them and had the support of an administrative law judge, the Workers’ Comp Commission and the State Civil Appeals Court.
But the high court stated: “Employer argued that Petitioner was not technically “working” unless he arrived at the rig site and signed in for the safety meeting. We reject Employer’s narrow interpretation. It is undisputed that the supervisor acknowledge at the hearing before the ALJ that he considered Petititon was “reporting for work that morning when he made it to the gas station.” Further, petition sought the “permission” of his supervisor before he left the gas station to proceed on to the drill site.”
The court said there was no evidence to show Pina was engaged in any personal or private reason for his travel from the gas station to the drilling site.
“We conclude that Petitioner’s travel that morning was for the sole benefit of his Employer. Accordingly,his accident is a covered event under the Administrative Workers’ Compensation Act as being in the course and scope of his employment.”