The employment contemplates the claimant's entry upon and departure from the premises "as much as it contemplate[s] his working there, and must include a reasonable interval of time for that purpose."E.I. duPont deNemours Co., Inc. v. Redding, 194 Okla. 52, 54, 147 P.2d 166, 168 (1944) (quoting Freire v. Matson Navigation Co., 118 P.2d 809, 812 (Cal. 1941)). ¶ 12 In Corbett v. Express Personnel, 1997 OK 40, 936 P.2d 932, the supreme court, as required by Burns, re-examined the situation of an on-the-premises injury sustained by an employee while going to or from work. The claimant in Corbett was injured on an employer-provided parking lot.

Although generally citing Burns, the Court did not discuss the application of the "increased risk" test and did not determine whether the driver's risk of a traffic accident was greater than that of other motorists on the road. ¶ 9 In Corbett v. Express Personnel, 1997 OK 40, 936 P.2d 932, the Court sustained the denial of award of benefits to an employee who was injured when the motorcycle he was riding struck the fence surrounding his employer's parking lot. The Court held the record contained competent evidence that the claimant was on a "personal mission" at the time he was injured.

Upon certiorari review sought by Claimant, we note that an employee's purpose in leaving work is relevant, but not dispositive, in deciding whether going and coming injuries arise out of employment. The test for such injuries is set forth in Corbett v. Express Personnel, 1997 OK 40, ¶ 8, 936 P.2d 932, 934. The material undisputed facts in the case at hand establish as a matter of law that claimant's injury was compensable under the second factor in the Corbett test.

¶ 10 Even if we were to consider the portion of the parking lot where the injury occurred to form part of AT T's premises, Austin's presence there "does not ipso facto make [her] injury compensable." Corbett v. Express Personnel, 1997 OK 40, ¶ 9, 936 P.2d 932, 934. "[O]nly injuries having as their source a risk not purely personal but one that is causally connected with the conditions of employment shall be deemed to arise out of employment." 85 O.S. § 3[ 85-3](12)(a).

(Emphasis added.) Barre quoted the emphasized language from Corbett v. Express Personnel, 1997 OK 40, ¶ 8,936 P.2d 932, 934, n. 7. In Barnhill, the Oklahoma Supreme Court also cited Barre with apparent approval.

She argues because her injury occurred in the parking lot, while going into work, it is deemed to have arisen out of and in the course of employment. She asserts that: 1) our decision in Corbett v. Express Personnel, 1997 OK 40, 936 P.2d 932 and its underlying rationale are controlling and dispositive of this cause; and 2) the parking lot does not need to be directly owned or under the complete control of the employer to be considered the premises of the employer for workers' compensation purposes. Because the injury here occurred on what is deemed to be the employer's premises, we agree that Worden and Burns do not apply.

However, in the recent case of Barre v. TCIM Services, Inc., 1998 OK CIV APP 179, 971 P.2d 874, this Court noted recent case authority in which injuries incurred on the employers' premises while going to or from work may be compensable if the risk of harm was created or maintained by the employer. See Corbett v. ExpressPersonnel, 1997 OK 40, 936 P.2d 932. Citing pre-1986 cases, the Corbett Court stated that when an employee's presence in a workplace parking lot is "unquestionably employment-related, there is no need for the court further to inquire into the `arising out of' prong as a separate issue." Id. at ¶ 8, n. 7, 936 P.2d at 934, n. 7. The Barre Court concluded that because the claimant was on the employer's premises using a stairway to go to work when injured, and the use of the stairway was acquiesced in by the employer, there was no need to apply the increased-risk test to determine the "arising out of" element.

Brazeal v. CITGO Petroleum Corp., 1997 OK CIV APP 61, 946 P.2d 680, 681. The most recent case to consider whether an injury sustained in an employer's parking lot as the employee is leaving work is Corbett v. Express Personnel, 1997 OK 40, 936 P.2d 932. In Corbett, the supreme court upheld the determination of the workers' compensation court that the injury therein did not arise out of and in the course of employment because: "Corbett left the workplace shortly before his lunch break began in order to conduct personal business [and his] exit from the premises was not within his employer's established break time . . . nor was his departure on assignment for company business."

¶ 9 A claimant seeking compensation has the burden of showing that the injuries for which benefits are sought both occurred "in the course" and "arose out of the employment. Corbett v. Express Pers., 1997 OK 40, ¶ 7, 936 P.2d 932, 934. Recovery is dependent on the claimant establishing these two distinct and separate requirements. Id. "In the course of employment concerns the time or place of the injury's occurrence or the circumstances under which the injury occurred.

Record proof, on the basis of which the trier could have reached a contrary conclusion, has no legal impact upon the review process by which a workers' compensation court's finding is tested. It is only the absence of competent evidence that makes the tribunal's decision erroneous (as a matter of law) and hence amenable to appellate vacation.Corbett v. Express Personnel, 1997 OK 40, ¶ 11, 936 P.2d 932, 935; Thomas v. Keith Hensel Optical Labs 1982 OK 120, ¶ 7, 653 P.2d 201, 203; American Management Systems, Inc. v. Burns, 1995 OK 58, ¶ 6, 903 P.2d 288, 291.Lanman v. Oklahoma County Sheriff's Office, 1998 OK 37, ¶ 6, 958 P.2d 795, 798 (citing Thomas, supra note 13, at ¶ 7, at 203).