GIBBY v. HOBBY LOBBY STORES INC.
2017 OK 78
| Okla. | 2017Background
- Brandon Gibby injured his wrist and knee at work in February 2014; Hobby Lobby paid temporary benefits but contested his permanent partial disability claim after he missed multiple medical appointments.
- Employer invoked § 57 of the Administrative Workers' Compensation Act (85A O.S. § 57, eff. Feb. 1, 2014), which forfeits workers’ compensation benefits if an employee misses two or more scheduled treatment appointments unless excused by extraordinary circumstances or two-hour prior notice with a valid excuse; lack of transportation is expressly excluded as an excuse.
- An ALJ found Gibby missed three appointments without valid excuse and denied permanent partial disability benefits; the Workers’ Compensation Commission affirmed.
- The Supreme Court of Oklahoma retained the appeal to decide constitutionality of § 57 under Article II, § 6 (the right-to-a-remedy/Grand Bargain provision of the Oklahoma Constitution).
- The Court held § 57 unconstitutional because it upends the Grand Bargain by forfeiting vested compensation rights and reinstating fault in a no-fault scheme; it struck § 57 in its entirety and left § 50(H)(12) (reimbursement for missed physician appointments) as the controlling remedy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Gibby) | Defendant's Argument (Hobby Lobby) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutionality of § 57 under Article II, § 6 | § 57 unlawfully forfeits vested compensation and denies an adequate substitute remedy | § 57 is a legitimate legislative incentive to ensure attendance and control costs/fraud | § 57 is unconstitutional; it violates Article II, § 6 and is stricken |
| Whether forfeiture may apply to permanent partial disability awards | Forfeiture cannot strip vested permanent benefits; PPD is awarded at MMI and is not a treatment-related benefit | § 57 authorizes denial of benefits after missed treatment appointments (Employer applied it to PPD) | Court agrees forfeiture cannot validly eliminate vested PPD; § 57 invalid as applied to vested benefits |
| Whether inability to obtain transportation may be a valid excuse | Transportation issues can be extraordinary and prevent attendance | Statute expressly excludes transportation as an excuse | Court struck the statute; did not preserve the transportation exclusion because § 57 invalid in whole |
| Available remedy after § 57 vacated | Gibby argued exclusive-remedy provision might be lifted to allow district-court suit | Employer argued incentives/administrative enforcement justify § 57 | Court did not open district-court remedies; directed reliance on § 50(H)(12) (reimbursement for missed physician appointments) as the proper statutory remedy |
Key Cases Cited
- Adams v. Iten Biscuit Co., 162 P. 938 (Okla. 1917) (upheld workers’ compensation as constitutionally permissible substitute remedy under the Grand Bargain)
- CNA Ins. Co. v. Ellis, 148 P.3d 874 (Okla. 2006) (worker’s right to compensation vests at time of injury)
- Maxwell v. Sprint PCS, 369 P.3d 1079 (Okla. 2016) (forfeiture provisions that reintroduce fault into no-fault system are problematic)
- Torres v. Seaboard Foods, LLC, 373 P.3d 1057 (Okla. 2016) (analysis of Article II, § 6 and the Grand Bargain framework)
- Hendrick v. Walters, 865 P.2d 1232 (Okla. 1993) (statutory forfeitures are disfavored)
- Kluver v. Weatherford Hosp. Auth., 859 P.2d 1081 (Okla. 1993) (de novo review standard for legal questions)