## Facts

- Cheryl E. Worden worked for Odyssey/Americare of Oklahoma as a home-health field nurse, primarily from her home, traveling to patients’ residences and visiting the employer’s office about once a week.
- The parties stipulated Worden was an employee covered by the Oklahoma Workers’ Compensation Act.
- On the day of injury, Worden left her house to drive to a scheduled patient appointment.
- While walking across her own yard to her car parked at her residence, she slipped on rain-wet grass and injured her foot and ankle.
- Worden asserted she would not have left the house but for the patient appointment.
- The Workers’ Compensation Court initially denied benefits, finding the injury resulted from a risk personal to Worden rather than a hazard associated with employment.
- A three-judge review panel reversed as contrary to law and against the clear weight of the evidence; on remand, the trial tribunal awarded disability and continuing medical benefits.
- The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the award, and the employer/insurer sought review.

## Issues

1. Whether an injury from slipping on rain-wet grass in an employee’s own yard while walking to her car to travel to a patient “arose out of” employment under Oklahoma workers’ compensation law.

## Decision

- The Oklahoma Supreme Court granted certiorari.
- The court held Worden’s injury did not arise out of her employment.
- The court vacated the Court of Civil Appeals’ opinion and vacated the Workers’ Compensation Court’s award.
- The case was remanded with instructions to enter judgment for the employer.

## Legal Principles

- “In the course of employment” concerns the time, place, and circumstances of the injury; “arising out of employment” requires a causal connection between the injury and risks incident to employment.
- The two requirements are distinct; establishing one does not establish the other.
- Risks may be categorized as (1) employment-related risks (compensable), (2) personal risks (not compensable), and (3) neutral risks (including weather-related conditions) that require a sufficient employment connection to be compensable.
- “But-for” causation (the fact the employee would not have been at the location absent work) is insufficient to satisfy the “arising out of” element.
- Home-based work does not convert hazards on the employee’s home premises into employment risks absent evidence that employment created, controlled, or increased the risk.

## Conclusion

Because slipping on rain-wet grass in Worden’s own yard was a general environmental condition not shown to be created or increased by her employment, the injury lacked the required causal nexus to employment and was not compensable under the Act.


Odyssey/Americare of Okla. v. Worden, 948 P.2d 309 (Okla. 1997)