435 P.3d 90
Okla.2018Background
- CompSource Mutual and Oklahoma Association of Electric Self Insurers Fund sought rebates under 68 O.S. § 6101 for Multiple Injury Trust Fund (MITF) assessments paid for 2015.
- § 6101 (created 2002) authorized a rebate equal to two‑thirds of the assessment paid, tied to assessments made “pursuant to Section 173 of Title 85.” 85 O.S. § 173 (and later § 403) set billing limits (1/3 chargeable to policyholders; 2/3 not chargeable).
- § 173 was repealed/recodified in the workers’ compensation reforms (85 O.S. § 403; later 85A O.S. § 31). In 2015 § 31 was amended to remove the billing restriction (the one‑third/two‑third split).
- Governor issued Executive Order 2015‑28 directing the Tax Commission to stop processing § 6101 rebates, interpreting the 2015 amendment as ending rebate authority; Tax Commission denied the rebate protests.
- An ALJ found rebates were due; Tax Commission (two commissioners) denied protests; petitioners appealed to the Oklahoma Supreme Court, which reversed the Tax Commission and remanded for processing rebates, denied interest, and held no implied repeal or substantive due process violation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nature of the reference in § 6101 to 85 O.S. § 173 — specific incorporation vs. general reference | § 6101 entitles carriers to a 2/3 rebate irrespective of later changes; reference incorporates § 173 as written in 2002 | The reference is general; later amendments to the workers’ compensation assessment statute (85A § 31) control rebate availability | Court: reference is a general reference to assessment procedure (not a frozen incorporation), so later assessment statutes are relevant to § 6101's application |
| Did the 2015 amendment to 85A O.S. § 31 implicitly repeal 68 O.S. § 6101/6102? | Rebate statute remains in force; no express repeal, and statutes can be harmonized | Removal of billing restrictions under § 31 eliminated the policy rationale for the rebate and thus repealed § 6101 by implication | Court: repeal by implication disfavored; no irreconcilable conflict; § 6101/6102 were not repealed by implication and remain operative |
| Was the Governor’s Executive Order binding and did reliance on it violate due process (vested rights/takings)? | Protestants claim vested right to rebate and that Executive Order/Tax Commission refusal deprived them of property without due process or just compensation | Executive Order reflected an administrative/legal view; Tax Commission acted on that view; no arbitrary/irrational action shown | Court: Executive Order was an incorrect legal conclusion but did not produce a substantive due process violation on the record; administrative remedies/protest were available and actions were reviewable; no taking/substantive due process breach shown |
| Are petitioners entitled to statutory interest on the rebates? | Petitioners requested interest under tax refund statute 68 O.S. § 225 | Tax Commission pointed to § 6102 specifying funding source and limiting liability; § 6102 is specific and does not provide interest | Court: specific rebate funding/control statute (§ 6102) governs and controls over general refund/interest provision; interest denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Fourco Glass Co. v. Transmirra Products Corp., 353 U.S. 222 (discussing effect of reenactment/recodification on prior statutory meaning)
- National Ass'n of Homebuilders v. Defenders of Wildlife, 551 U.S. 644 (repeals by implication are not favored; inference of repeal only if necessary)
- Dir., Office of Workers' Comp. Programs v. Peabody Coal Co., 554 F.2d 310 (7th Cir.) (on treating specific references as general references in context)
- Fent v. Henry, 257 P.3d 984 (Okla. 2011) (Oklahoma rule that repeal by implication is disfavored)
- Branch Trucking Co. v. State ex rel. Oklahoma Tax Comm'n, 801 P.2d 686 (Okla. 1990) (administrative construction of statute entitled to great weight when long‑standing)