GRAHAM v. D & K OILFIELD SERVICES
2017 OK 72
| Okla. | 2017Background
- Ray Graham injured his left inguinal hernia at work on Feb. 22, 2016, had surgery, developed a recurrent hernia, and required a second surgery.
- Employer admitted compensability, paid all medical expenses and six weeks of temporary total disability (TTD) benefits under 85A O.S. Supp. 2013 § 61.
- Graham challenged § 61 as unconstitutional (due process, special-law, and inadequate remedy claims) and sought additional TTD and permanent partial disability.
- An ALJ and the Workers’ Compensation Commission en banc upheld § 61 and denied additional benefits; Graham appealed to the Oklahoma Supreme Court.
- The Supreme Court held § 61 constitutional but, in light of Corbeil v. Emricks Van & Storage, remanded to determine whether Graham’s recurrent hernia entitles him to an additional six weeks of TTD under § 61.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 61 violates due process (state and federal) by capping hernia TTD at 6 weeks | Graham: six-week TTD cap is arbitrary, not rationally related to legitimate state interests | Employer: cap furthers legitimate goals (support during forced idleness; limit employer exposure); hernias reasonably classified and historically treated with week-limits | Court: § 61 is rationally related to legitimate interests and does not violate due process |
| Whether § 61 is an unconstitutional special law (Art. 5 § 59) | Graham: § 61 treats members of same class (injured employees) differently without reasonable basis | Employer: classification by injury type is permissible; general law (§ 45) need not apply to all injuries; distinctions are rational | Court: § 61 is a special law but permissible under § 59 because it reasonably relates to a valid legislative objective |
| Whether § 61 denies an adequate remedy (Art. 2 § 6) | Graham: six-week cap provides inadequate remedy for his economic loss | Employer: AWCA provides remedy (medical + six weeks TTD); Legislature may set benefit limits | Court: Art. 2 § 6 does not constrain legislative benefit choices; § 61 does not deny an adequate remedy |
| Proper application of § 61 to recurrent hernia (award scope) | Graham: recurrence and second surgery justify additional TTD beyond initial six weeks | Employer: argues single hernia treatment should limit total award | Court: constitutional challenge rejected, but remanded under Corbeil to decide if recurrence entitles Graham to an additional six weeks (i.e., whether each distinct hernia event/repair allows separate six-week TTD awards) |
Key Cases Cited
- Torres v. Seaboard Foods, LLC, 373 P.3d 1057 (Okla. 2016) (struck statute as violating due process where classification was over- and under-inclusive)
- Rivas v. Parkland Manor, 12 P.3d 452 (Okla. 2000) (Legislature may set limits on workers’ compensation benefits; remedy clause does not invalidate such limits)
- Adams v. Iten Biscuit Co., 162 P. 938 (Okla. 1917) (Art. 2 § 6 is a judicial mandate to keep courts open, not a limit on legislative power to alter remedies)
- Vasquez v. Dillard's, Inc., 381 P.3d 768 (Okla. 2016) (special-law analysis under Art. 5 § 59 applied to AWCA opt-out provisions)
- Maxwell v. Sprint PCS, 369 P.3d 1079 (Okla. 2016) (AWCA classifications treating some injuries differently can constitute an unconstitutional special law)
- Rialto Mining Co. v. Perry, 196 P.2d 687 (Okla. 1948) (recurrent hernia is a recurrence of original injury unless caused by a new accident)
- Fiesta Pools of Okla. City v. Pratt, 405 P.2d 1014 (Okla. 1965) (historical treatment of hernia benefits in Oklahoma statutes)