GRAHAM v. D & K OILFIELD SERVICES
2017 OK 72
| Okla. | 2017Background
- Ray Graham, an oilfield worker, sustained a work-related left inguinal hernia (Feb 22, 2016), had surgery, then developed a recurrent hernia requiring a second surgery.
- Employer admitted compensability, paid all medical costs and six weeks of temporary total disability (TTD) per 85A O.S. Supp. 2013 § 61; claimant sought additional TTD and permanent partial disability.
- Graham challenged § 61 as unconstitutional: (1) due process (six-week TTD cap arbitrary), (2) impermissible special law, and (3) denial of an adequate remedy under Art. 2, § 6.
- ALJ and the Workers’ Compensation Commission (en banc) held § 61 constitutional and denied additional benefits; Graham appealed to the Oklahoma Supreme Court.
- The Court upheld the statute’s constitutionality but, relying on Corbeil v. Emricks Van & Storage, remanded to determine whether Graham’s recurrent hernia entitles him to an additional six-week TTD award under § 61.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 61’s six-week TTD cap violates due process (Art. 2 § 7, 14th Amend.) | Six-week cap is arbitrary and not rationally related to legitimate state interests; claimant suffered more than six weeks off work | Legislature has legitimate interests (contain employer exposure, provide limited/ certain benefits); six weeks aligns with typical hernia recovery and historical precedent | Statute is rationally related to legitimate interests; does not violate due process |
| Whether § 61 is an impermissible special law (Art. 5 § 46 / § 59) | § 61 treats hernia claimants differently from other injured workers without reasonable basis | Differentiation by injury type is permissible; general law § 45 applies but specific injuries can be treated differently and § 61 is reasonably related to legislative objectives | § 61 is a special law but permissible under Art. 5 § 59 because it reasonably relates to valid objectives |
| Whether § 61 denies an adequate remedy (Art. 2 § 6) | Six-week cap leaves claimant without an adequate remedy for his injury and economic loss | Remedy exists: medical care and six weeks TTD; Art. 2 § 6 does not constrain legislative choices on benefits | § 61 does not violate Art. 2 § 6; remedy claim fails because legislature may set benefit limits |
| Proper application of § 61 to recurrent hernia | Recurrent hernia required two surgeries and extended recovery; claimant seeks additional six weeks TTD for recurrence | § 61 historically limited TTD per hernia; prior cases treated recurrence as continuation of same injury unless new accident | Court remanded for application consistent with Corbeil (legislature intended up to six weeks per distinct hernia); factual question whether recurrence entitles Graham to an additional six weeks |
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 underinclusive)
- Rivas v. Parkland Manor, 12 P.3d 452 (Okla. 2000) (legislative limits on workers’ compensation benefits are a legislative policy choice; remedy clause does not constrain legislature)
- Adams v. Iten Biscuit Co., 162 P. 938 (Okla. 1917) (Art. 2, § 6 construed as a limitation on judiciary, not on legislature’s power to change remedies)
- Fiesta Pools of Okla. City v. Pratt, 405 P.2d 1014 (Okla. 1965) (historical summary of hernia provisions in workers’ compensation law)
- Rialto Min. Co. v. Perry, 196 P.2d 687 (Okla. 1948) (recurrent hernia is generally a recurrence of the original injury unless caused by a new accident)