GRAHAM v. D & K OILFIELD SERVICES
2017 OK 72
| Okla. | 2017Background
- Ray Graham suffered an on-the-job left inguinal hernia on Feb. 22, 2016, had surgical repair and later a recurrent hernia requiring a second surgery; employer conceded compensability and paid medical bills plus six weeks TTD.
- Graham challenged the constitutionality of the AWCA hernia provision, 85A O.S. Supp. 2013 § 61, and sought additional TTD and PPD benefits beyond the six-week cap.
- An ALJ held § 61 constitutional and denied further benefits; the Workers' Compensation Commission en banc affirmed.
- The Oklahoma Supreme Court retained review to decide whether § 61 violates due process, the special-law prohibitions, or the constitutional remedy guarantee; the Court also considered proper application of § 61 to recurrent hernias.
- The Court upheld the statute's constitutionality on all three constitutional grounds but remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion and Corbeil on whether a recurrent hernia can trigger an additional six-week TTD award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Due process: Is § 61's six-week TTD cap for hernias arbitrary under federal and state due process? | Graham: six-week cap is arbitrary and not rationally related to legitimate state interests; inadequate for his prolonged recovery. | Employer: legislature has legitimate interest balancing worker support and limiting employer exposure; six weeks aligns with typical hernia recovery and historic practice. | Court: statute is rationally related to legitimate interests; § 61 does not violate due process. |
| Special-law prohibition: Does § 61 impermissibly create a special law by treating hernia injuries differently? | Graham: disparate treatment of a subclass of injured employees is an unconstitutional special law. | Employer: differentiating by injury type is permissible; a general law (§45) is not necessarily applicable and §61 is reasonably related to valid objectives. | Court: §61 is a special law but permissible under Art. 5 §59 because it is reasonably and substantially related to a valid legislative objective. |
| Remedy guarantee (Art. 2 §6): Does capping benefits deny an adequate remedy? | Graham: six-week cap deprives him of an adequate remedy for his property interest. | Employer: Art.2 §6 does not constrain legislative choices about benefit amounts; remedies under AWCA exist (medical + six weeks TTD). | Court: Art.2 §6 does not prohibit legislative limits on statutory remedies; §61 does not violate the remedy guarantee. |
| Application to recurrent hernia: Does a recurrent hernia entitle claimant to an additional six weeks TTD? | Graham: recurrence required second surgery and lengthy recovery, so he should get additional six weeks under §61. | Employer: recurrence may be treated as return of original injury; only separate distinct hernias might get separate awards. | Court: Remanded to apply this Court's holding in Corbeil regarding separate hernias; decision whether recurrent hernia warrants another six weeks requires proceedings consistent with Corbeil. |
Key Cases Cited
- Torres v. Seaboard Foods, LLC, 373 P.3d 1057 (Okla. 2016) (struck statutory 180-day rule for cumulative trauma as violating due process by creating arbitrary classifications)
- Rivas v. Parkland Manor, 12 P.3d 452 (Okla. 2000) (legislature may limit workers' compensation benefits; remedy clause cannot be used to invalidate such limits)
- Adams v. Iten Biscuit Co., 162 P. 938 (Okla. 1917) (Art. 2 §6 construed as a limitation on the judiciary, not on legislative power to alter remedies)
- Maxwell v. Sprint PCS, 369 P.3d 1079 (Okla. 2016) (AWCA provisions creating disparate procedures for subclasses can constitute unconstitutional special laws)
- Vasquez v. Dillard's, Inc., 381 P.3d 768 (Okla. 2016) (opt-out provisions in AWCA held to be unconstitutional special law)
- Fiesta Pools of Oklahoma City v. Pratt, 405 P.2d 1014 (Okla. 1965) (historical treatment of hernia provisions in Oklahoma workers' compensation law)
- Rialto Mining Co. v. Perry, 196 P.2d 687 (Okla. 1948) (recurrent hernia generally treated as recurrence of original injury unless caused by new accident)
- Speer v. Petrolite Special Polymers Group, 918 P.2d 92 (Okla. Civ. App. 1996) (analysis of bilateral hernias and when multiple awards are appropriate)
- Brown v. Claims Mgmt. Resources, Inc., 391 P.3d 111 (Okla. 2017) (applicable law and appellate review standards for AWCA matters)