The Oklahoma Bar Journal May 2023

Factory work was one of only two dozen occupations covered by the Industrial Commission’s jurisdiction as determined by the 1919 Oklahoma Legislature. Pictured above, employees produce clothing at an Oklahoma City garment factory. Courtesy Oklahoma Historical Society.

hazardous. The problem grew worse as more Oklahoma workers were employed in occupations not covered by workers’ compensa tion. Thousands of workers were not provided benefits, even if they were clearly injured as a result of their employment. 12 Occasionally, the Supreme Court ruled favorably for an injured worker in a case where the evi dence was too close to call. In an early law, it was presumed that an injured worker should be awarded benefits as a matter of social policy if the evidence was equal. That pre sumption favoring the worker was eliminated from the law in 1999. 13 Jurisdiction of workers’ com pensation claims remained with

the state Industrial Commission until 1959, when the Legislature created the State Industrial Court and made it a court of record in the judicial branch. IN THE COURSE AND SCOPE OF EMPLOYMENT The number one source of litigation in more than a century of interpreting Oklahoma’s workers’ compensation laws is the statu tory requirement that an injury is compensable only if it arises out of the course of and in the scope of employment. The “in the course of” was generally interpreted to mean that a worker was covered by workers’ compensation if they were injured during a normal work

the Supreme Court still struggled to determine what injury fit the definition. The uncertainty often resulted in decisions that denied benefits for serious injuries obvi ously sustained in the course and scope of employment. A traveling salesman lost sight in one eye when he was struck by an object flying off a passing vehicle. The Supreme Court denied benefits because being a traveling sales man was not “manual labor.” 11 The Supreme Court of Oklahoma consistently used the narrowest of statutory interpre tations to overturn the Industrial Commission’s award of bene fits to workers injured in what we today uniformly classify as

Statements or opinions expressed in the Oklahoma Bar Journal are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Oklahoma Bar Association, its officers, Board of Governors, Board of Editors or staff.

34 | MAY 2023

THE OKLAHOMA BAR JOURNAL