Staley v. City of Oilton

Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma

Staley v. City of Oilton

1996 OK CIV APP 68, 919 P.2d 463, 67 O.B.A.J. 2253, 1996 Okla. Civ. App. LEXIS 52, 1996 WL 384127

CourtCourt of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedJune 4, 1996

Docket86789

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 1996 OK CIV APP 68 (Staley v. City of Oilton) 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.

Bluebook

Staley v. City of Oilton, 1996 OK CIV APP 68, 919 P.2d 463, 67 O.B.A.J. 2253, 1996 Okla. Civ. App. LEXIS 52, 1996 WL 384127 (Okla. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

ADAMS, Vice-Chief Judge:

Claimant Jim Staley was injured while performing community service for the City of Oilton (City) in lieu of payment of fines or imprisonment. ' He filed a workers’ compensation claim, alleging he was employed by City. City denied Staley was employed. After hearing, the trial judge entered an order denying Staley’s claim, finding that Staley was not an employee of City at the time of his injury. Staley filed an en banc appeal, and the three-judge panel affirmed.

In this review proceeding, Staley claims the trial court was required to find he was an *464 employee because he was performing work for compensation. According to the undisputed evidence, Staley was performing the community service because he had been convicted of various municipal offenses and elected to perform work for the City rather than pay the fines and costs assessed or serve time in jail. Because the amount of his community service time was credited against the fines and costs at $4.25 per hour, Staley contends he was being compensated or received “wages” for his work and is therefore an employee under the Workers’ Compensation Act, 85 O.S.1991 § 1, et seq.

The Oklahoma Supreme Court addressed a similar claim in City of Clinton v. White Crow, 488 P.2d 1232 (Okla.1971) and held that a city prisoner performing work for the city in return for credit on his fines and costs was not an employee covered by workers’ compensation. Although Staley does not appear to have actually been placed in custody, we see little difference between this case and White Crow. Staley did not voluntarily choose to perform work for City, but did so because he was ordered to do so as an alternative punishment for municipal crimes. On this record, the Workers’ Compensation Court correctly concluded Staley was not City’s employee. The order denying Staley’s claim is sustained.

SUSTAINED.

HANSEN, P.J., and BUETTNER, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION

ADAMS, Vice-Chief Judge:

Claimant Jim Staley was injured while performing community service for the City of Oilton (City) in lieu of payment of fines or imprisonment. ' He filed a workers’ compensation claim, alleging he was employed by City. City denied Staley was employed. After hearing, the trial judge entered an order denying Staley’s claim, finding that Staley was not an employee of City at the time of his injury. Staley filed an en banc appeal, and the three-judge panel affirmed.

In this review proceeding, Staley claims the trial court was required to find he was an *464 employee because he was performing work for compensation. According to the undisputed evidence, Staley was performing the community service because he had been convicted of various municipal offenses and elected to perform work for the City rather than pay the fines and costs assessed or serve time in jail. Because the amount of his community service time was credited against the fines and costs at $4.25 per hour, Staley contends he was being compensated or received “wages” for his work and is therefore an employee under the Workers’ Compensation Act, 85 O.S.1991 § 1, et seq.

The Oklahoma Supreme Court addressed a similar claim in City of Clinton v. White Crow, 488 P.2d 1232 (Okla.1971) and held that a city prisoner performing work for the city in return for credit on his fines and costs was not an employee covered by workers’ compensation. Although Staley does not appear to have actually been placed in custody, we see little difference between this case and White Crow. Staley did not voluntarily choose to perform work for City, but did so because he was ordered to do so as an alternative punishment for municipal crimes. On this record, the Workers’ Compensation Court correctly concluded Staley was not City’s employee. The order denying Staley’s claim is sustained.

SUSTAINED.

HANSEN, P.J., and BUETTNER, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1996 OK CIV APP 68, 919 P.2d 463, 67 O.B.A.J. 2253, 1996 Okla. Civ. App. LEXIS 52, 1996 WL 384127, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/staley-v-city-of-oilton-oklacivapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack