GRAHAM v. D & K OILFIELD SERVICES
2017 OK 72
| Okla. | 2017Background
- Ray Graham, an oilfield worker, sustained a compensable left inguinal hernia on Feb. 22, 2016, had surgical repair, then developed a recurrent hernia requiring a second surgery; employer paid medical expenses and six weeks TTD.
- Graham challenged 85A O.S. Supp. 2013 § 61 (hernia provision) as unconstitutional and sought additional TTD and PPD at a contested hearing before an ALJ.
- ALJ held § 61 constitutional and awarded no benefits beyond medicals and the six weeks already paid; the Workers' Compensation Commission affirmed.
- Graham appealed to the Oklahoma Supreme Court arguing § 61 violates due process, is an unconstitutional special law, and denies an adequate remedy under the Oklahoma Constitution.
- The Court rejected the facial constitutional challenges but, guided by its decision in Corbeil, remanded to determine whether Graham’s recurrent hernia entitles him to an additional six weeks TTD under § 61.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 61 violates due process by capping TTD for hernias at six weeks | Graham: six-week cap is arbitrary, not rationally related to a legitimate state interest | Employer: legislature may limit benefits to balance worker support and employer exposure; six weeks aligns with typical hernia recovery | Held: No due process violation; cap is rationally related to legitimate legislative objectives |
| Whether § 61 is an unconstitutional special law under Art. 5, § 46/59 | Graham: § 61 treats members of the injured-worker class differently with no reasonable basis | Employer: injuries may be differentiated by type; hernias are a legitimate subclass and general law § 45 is not controlling here | Held: § 61 is a special law but permissible because it reasonably relates to valid legislative objectives and a general law is not applicable |
| Whether § 61 denies an adequate remedy under Art. 2, § 6 | Graham: six-week cap leaves him without adequate remedy for his loss | Employer: AWCA provides remedy (medicals + six weeks TTD); remedy clause does not limit legislative power to set benefits | Held: No violation; Art. 2, § 6 does not prevent Legislature from defining benefits or altering remedies for future claims |
| Proper application of § 61 to recurrent hernia | Graham: recurrence and second surgery justify additional TTD beyond initial six weeks | Employer: recurrent hernia may be considered continuation of original injury, not a new compensable hernia | Held: Facial challenges denied, but remanded (per Corbeil) to decide whether recurrence here entitles Graham to an additional six weeks TTD under § 61 |
Key Cases Cited
- Torres v. Seaboard Foods, LLC, 373 P.3d 1057 (Okla. 2016) (struck statutory 180‑day employment rule as violating due process because it created irrational over/under inclusive classes)
- Rivas v. Parkland Manor, 12 P.3d 452 (Okla. 2000) (legislature may set benefit limits; remedy clause does not bar statutory limitations on benefits)
- Adams v. Iten Biscuit Co., 162 P. 938 (Okla. 1917) (Art. 2, § 6 interpreted as a limitation on judiciary, not on legislative power to change remedies)
- Rialto Mining Co. v. Perry, 196 P.2d 687 (Okla. 1948) (recurrent hernia is a return of the original hernia absent a new accident or intervening cause)
- Fiesta Pools of Oklahoma City v. Pratt, 405 P.2d 1014 (Okla. 1965) (historical overview of hernia provisions and TTD weeks in Oklahoma workers' compensation law)
- Maxwell v. Sprint PCS, 369 P.3d 1079 (Okla. 2016) (AWCA provisions that treat injury types differently can constitute a special law subject to scrutiny)
- Vasquez v. Dillard's, Inc., 381 P.3d 768 (Okla. 2016) (opt‑out provisions of AWCA held special law in violation of constitution)