Graham v. D & K Oilfield Services, Inc.
2017 OK 72
| Okla. | 2017Background
- Ray Graham injured his left inguinal hernia at work on February 22, 2016; he underwent surgery and later suffered a recurrent hernia requiring a second surgery. Employer admitted compensability and paid medical bills plus six weeks of temporary total disability (TTD).
- Graham challenged the constitutionality of 85A O.S. Supp. 2013 § 61 (hernia provision), seeking additional TTD (from Feb 26 to Sept 6, 2016) and permanent partial disability, arguing the six-week cap was unconstitutional.
- An ALJ applied § 61, deemed it constitutional as applied, and denied further benefits; the Workers' Compensation Commission (en banc) affirmed.
- The Oklahoma Supreme Court granted review, addressing due process, special-law, and adequate-remedy challenges to § 61, and also considered how § 61 should apply to recurrent hernias in light of Corbeil v. Emricks Van & Storage.
- The Court upheld the statute’s constitutionality on all constitutional grounds but remanded to determine whether Graham’s recurrent hernia entitles him to an additional six-week TTD award under § 61, consistent with Corbeil.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 61 violates due process (U.S. & Okla.) by capping hernia TTD at six weeks | Six-week cap is arbitrary, not rationally related to legitimate state interests; unconstitutional like Torres | Legislature legitimately balanced worker support against employer exposure; six weeks aligns with typical hernia recovery and historical treatment | § 61 is rationally related to legitimate interests; does not violate due process |
| Whether § 61 is an unconstitutional special law under Okla. Const. art. 5, § 46/59 | § 61 treats a subclass (hernia sufferers) differently without reasonable basis | Differentiation by injury-type is permissible and common in AWCA; general law (§45) not always appropriate | § 61 is a special law but permissible: general law inapplicable and § 61 reasonably related to legislative objective |
| Whether § 61 denies an adequate remedy under Okla. Const. art. 2, § 6 | Six-week cap leaves claimant without adequate remedy for his loss | AWCA provides a remedy (medical + six weeks TTD); art.2 §6 does not constrain legislative benefit limits | § 61 does not violate art.2 §6; the remedy exists though the amount is a legislative choice |
| Proper application of § 61 to recurrent hernias (entitlement to additional TTD) | Recurrent hernia produced additional disability period; thus claimant should get additional six weeks | Employer relied on historical treatment treating recurrence as same injury, contesting double award | Remanded: guided by Corbeil, Court directed reassessment whether recurrent hernia merits an additional six-week TTD under § 61 |
Key Cases Cited
- Torres v. Seaboard Foods, LLC, 373 P.3d 1057 (Okla. 2016) (held a statutory 180-day employment requirement for cumulative trauma claims violated due process as irrationally over-/under-inclusive)
- Rivas v. Parkland Manor, 12 P.3d 452 (Okla. 2000) (upheld legislative limits on workers' compensation benefit amounts; remedy clause does not constrain legislative benefit-setting)
- Adams v. Iten Biscuit Co., 162 P. 938 (Okla. 1917) (interpreting art.2 §6 as a limitation on judiciary, not on legislature's power to change remedies)
- Reynolds v. Porter, 760 P.2d 816 (Okla. 1988) (framework for evaluating whether a statute is a permissible special law under art.5 §59)
- Rialto Min. Co. v. Perry, 196 P.2d 687 (Okla. 1948) (recurrent hernia generally treated as a recurrence of original injury unless caused by a new accident)
- Safeway Stores v. Brumley, 128 P.2d 1006 (Okla. 1942) (similar rule that recurrence is not a new hernia absent intervening cause)