NOMAC DRILLING LLC v. Mowdy
2012 OK 45
| Okla. | 2012Background
- ClaimantKelly Mowdy worked as a floor hand for Nomac Drilling at a Louisiana well site; Employer provided housing in a trailer at the site.
- ClaimantAwoke Aug 22, 2009 to two red dots on his right knee and suspected a spider bite; infection developed and required MRSA treatment and surgery.
- Claimant missed work Aug 27–Oct 1, 2009 under medical orders; he later sought compensation for the injury.
- Claimant offered medical testimony from Dr. Lonnie Litchfield linking the injury to employment; Employer offered Dr. John Munneke’s contrary medical opinion.
- Workers’ Compensation Court found the injury arose out of and in the course of employment; panel affirmed; Court of Civil Appeals vacated and dismissed the award; certiorari granted.
- This premised case involves whether the claimant’s expert medical testimony meets the standards for admissible expert medical evidence in a workers’ compensation action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether claimant’s expert medical testimony satisfies standards for expert medical evidence | Mowdy’s expert linked the spider bite diagnosis to work activity | Nomac argues the report is flawed or insufficient to prove work-related injury | Yes; the expert report is admissible and supports the award |
| Whether the medical report was curable on remand if found flawed | If a critical element is missing, remand allows cure | The report here was not curable as drafted | The report was curable; no remand needed to determine credibility and connection to employment |
| Whether the injury arose out of and in the course of employment | Employment-related activities caused the injury; major cause of disability | Employer contends the injury was not primarily caused by employment | Yes; the injury arose out of and in the course of employment; employment was the major cause |
| Standard of review applying the 'any competent evidence' standard pre-2010 amendments | WC Court’s finding must be supported by competent evidence | Panel must reweigh evidence if not competent | WC Court’s decision sustained under the competent-evidence standard |
Key Cases Cited
- Townley’s Dairy v. Gibbons, 395 P.2d 947 (Okla. 1964) (medical opinion with general tenor suffices to link work to injury)
- National Zinc Co. v. Stefanopoulos, 405 P.2d 998 (Okla. 1965) (medical testimony need not use exact statutory language; can rely on general tenor)
- City of Norman v. Garza, 83 P.3d 851 (Okla. 2003) (remand allowed to cure a curable defect in medical testimony)
- Hammons v. Okla. Fixture Co., 64 P.3d 1108 (Okla. 2003) (curable flaws in medical evidence may be rehabilitated on remand)
- Gaines v. Sun Refinery and Mktg., 790 P.2d 1073 (Okla. 1990) (recognizes admissibility of medical testimony with adequate causal language)