McDANIEL v. WOODS PUMPING SERVICES, INC.
This text of 2018 OK CIV APP 60 (McDANIEL v. WOODS PUMPING SERVICES, INC.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
McDANIEL v. WOODS PUMPING SERVICES, INC.
2018 OK CIV APP 60
Case Number: 116420
Decided: 08/31/2018
Mandate Issued: 10/03/2018
DIVISION III
THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, DIVISION III
Cite as: 2018 OK CIV APP 60, __ P.3d __
JASON McDANIEL, Petitioner,
v.
WOODS PUMPING SERVICES, INC., COMPSOURCE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, and THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION, Respondents.
PROCEEDING TO REVIEW AN ORDER
OF THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION
REVERSED AND REMANDED
Joe Farnan, Purcell, Oklahoma, for Petitioner,
Gary Farabough, Warren E. Mouledoux, III, PASLEY, FARABOUGH AND MOULEDOUX, Ardmore, Oklahoma, for Respondents Woods Pumping Services, Inc. and Compsource Mutual Insurance Company.
¶1 Petitioner Jason McDaniel (Claimant) appeals from the order of the Workers' Compensation Commission affirming the Administrative Law Judge's order finding Claimant sustained a left orbital wall fracture but denying compensability based on Respondent Woods Pumping Services, Inc. and CompSource Mutual Insurance Company's (Employer) intoxication defense. The Commission's finding that, within 24 hours of the injury, Claimant refused to undergo drug and alcohol testing is supported by substantial evidence. Pursuant to 85A O.S. Supp. 2013 §2(9)(b)(4), Claimant's refusal created a rebuttable presumption that the injury was caused by drugs or alcohol. However, there is uncontroverted evidence Claimant was not intoxicated when the injury occurred. Therefore, we hold the Commission's finding that Claimant failed to overcome the presumption of intoxication is not supported by substantial evidence. The Commission's order denying compensability based on the intoxication defense is REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings.
¶2 Claimant asserts that while working December 22, 2016, he was injured when he was disconnecting a rubber hose and the hose hit him in the face. Claimant filed a Form-3 January 18, 2017 claiming injuries to his left eye, head, neck, and right hand. Employer denied compensability based on an intoxication defense. See 85A O.S. §2(9)(b)(4). The ALJ found Claimant sustained a left orbital wall fracture while employed by Employer;1 Claimant did not undergo alcohol and drug testing and Claimant did not overcome the intoxication presumption. The ALJ entered an Order Denying Compensability. Claimant appealed to the Workers' Compensation Commission. The Commission found the ALJ's order was supported by a preponderance of the credible evidence and correctly applied the law and, therefore, was not against the clear weight of the evidence nor contrary to law. The Commission entered an Order Affirming Decision of Administrative Law Judge. Claimant seeks review.
¶3 The Administrative Workers' Compensation Act provides that we may modify, reverse, remand for rehearing or set aside a judgment or award only if it was:
1. In violation of constitutional provisions;
2. In excess of the statutory authority or jurisdiction of the Commission;
3. Made on unlawful procedure;
4. Affected by other error of law;
5. Clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, material, probative and substantial competent evidence;
6. Arbitrary or capricious;
7. Procured by fraud; or
8. Missing findings of fact on issues essential to the decision.
85A O.S. Supp. 2013 §78(C). Interpreting §78(C)(5), our Supreme Court has said "[O]n issues of fact, the Commission's order will be affirmed if the record contains substantial evidence in support of the facts upon which it is based and the order is otherwise free of error." Brown v. Claims Mgmt. Res., Inc., 2017 OK 13, ¶11, 391 P.3d 111.
¶4 The intoxication defense is found at 85A O.S. Supp. 2013 §2(9)(b)(4) and it provides:
b. "Compensable injury" does not include:
. . . .
(4) injury where the accident was caused by the use of alcohol, illegal drugs, or prescription drugs used in contravention of physician's orders. If, within twenty-four (24) hours of being injured or reporting an injury, an employee tests positive for intoxication, an illegal controlled substance, or a legal controlled substance used in contravention to a treating physician's orders, or refuses to undergo the drug and alcohol testing, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the injury was caused by the use of alcohol, illegal drugs, or prescription drugs used in contravention of physician's orders. This presumption may only be overcome if the employee proves by clear and convincing evidence that his or her state of intoxication had no causal relationship to the injury[.]
Claimant argues first that Employer failed to establish he refused to undergo drug and alcohol testing. And second, that even if Employer established he refused to undergo drug and alcohol testing, he proved by clear and convincing evidence that he was not intoxicated and overcame the intoxication presumption.
¶5 Claimant and his supervisor were the only witnesses to testify at trial. The evidence as to whether Claimant refused to undergo drug and alcohol testing was conflicting. Claimant testified he did not remember Randall asking him to go to the hospital or take a drug and alcohol test the day of the accident.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2018 OK CIV APP 60, 428 P.3d 330, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcdaniel-v-woods-pumping-services-inc-oklacivapp-2018.