CARLOCK v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION
324 P.3d 408
| Okla. | 2014Background
- Petitioners (Carlock, Studeman, Barrera, and insurer Old Glory) sought original jurisdiction relief from the Oklahoma Supreme Court concerning reviewability and administration of pre-February 1, 2014 workers’ compensation claims.
- The Legislature dissolved the Workers’ Compensation Court and created the Court of Existing Claims for injuries occurring before February 1, 2014, under 85A O.S.Supp.2013 § 400.
- Statutory provisions in 85A § 400 address adjudication of existing claims and include subsections purporting to allow review by the Workers’ Compensation Commission.
- Petitioners asked the Court to (1) declare which tribunals may review orders/awards for injuries before Feb. 1, 2014 and (2) address how vacancies on the Court of Existing Claims are to be filled.
- The Supreme Court agreed to decide the declaratory issue about review jurisdiction for pre-February 1, 2014 injuries but declined to decide the vacancy-appointment issue as premature/speculative.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether orders/awards for injuries before Feb. 1, 2014 may be reviewed by the Workers' Compensation Commission under 85A § 400 | Petitioners argued the Commission cannot review pre-Feb. 1, 2014 Court of Existing Claims awards because the law at time of injury controls and did not grant Commission review | Respondent (WCC/statute) relied on subsections of 85A § 400 (I) and (J) that appear to permit Commission review | Held: All adjudication for injuries before Feb. 1, 2014 is governed by law at time of injury; Commission had no jurisdiction to review those awards despite §§ 400(I),(J) provisions |
| Whether parties retain rights to seek review before a three-judge panel of the Court of Existing Claims or the Supreme Court | Petitioners asserted historic review rights under preexisting law (three-judge panel or direct Supreme Court review) should remain | Respondent argued statutory restructuring altered review paths in ways that might permit Commission review | Held: Parties retain the right to seek review before a three-judge panel or the Supreme Court as governed by pre-injury law and relevant rules (85 O.S. § 340; rules effective Jan. 31, 2014) |
| Scope of Supreme Court's original jurisdiction requested | Petitioners sought broad declaratory relief including appointment procedure for future vacancies | Petitioners asked for resolution of administrative appointment mechanics | Held: Court assumed original jurisdiction only for declaratory relief about review jurisdiction; appointment/vacancy issues were denied as premature |
| Whether future vacancy appointments to the Court of Existing Claims are ripe for review | Petitioners sought guidance on filling vacancies | Respondent contended vacancies procedures were not ripe and speculative | Held: Denied relief as speculative; concurrence emphasized ripeness and possible attrition making appointments unnecessary |
Key Cases Cited
- King Manufacturing v. Meadows, 127 P.3d 584 (2005 OK) (law in effect at time of injury governs adjudication and review rights)