Oklahoma State Chiropractic Independent Physicians Ass'n v. Fallin, 2011 OK 102

Chiropractors Post and Hayes and the Oklahoma State Chiropractic Independent Physicians Association seek this Court's original jurisdiction to declare parts of the 2011 Workers' Compensation Code unconstitutional.
85 O.S. Supp.2011 §§ 329 and 333 restrict qualified independent medical examiners to MDs or DOs and set standards for following IME opinions.
Chiropractors argue they were previously used as IMEs and that the new code excludes them, affecting their practice and the workforce.
Statutes also impose separation-of-powers concerns by limiting the Workers' Compensation Court's discretion in judging claims.
The majority severs several offending provisions and upholds the rest; the dissent disagrees with treating the laws as special and with severability.
Consolidated posture: the question is whether to sever offending language while preserving the remainder of the act.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Are the challenged provisions special laws?	Chiropractors claim exclusion creates a suspect class.	Statutes distinguish based on professional training, not a protected class.	Special-law challenge fails; provisions are not unconstitutional special laws.
Do the provisions violate separation of powers?	Excluding chiropractors and altering evidentiary standards encroach on judiciary.	Legislature may regulate workers' compensation; not judicial power.	No violation; does not impermissibly invade judicial prerogatives.
Are the offending provisions severable from the rest of the act?	Legislature would not have enacted the act without the offending language.	Severability should preserve as much of the act as possible.	Yes; offending language severable; non-offending portions can stand.
Should the court assume original jurisdiction to resolve these constitutional questions?	Public interest and urgency warrant original jurisdiction.	No urgent public interest; issues can be resolved in district court.	Original-jurisdiction assumption granted in part; the offending statutes are severed and constitutional questions addressed.

Yocum v. Greenbriar Nursing Home, 130 P.3d 213 (OK 2005) (IME opinions are evidentiary; judiciary retains fact-finding authority)
Conaghan v. Riverfield Country Day School, 163 P.3d 557 (OK 2007) (predetermination of adjudicative facts violates separation of powers; rebuttable presumptions may be allowed)
Grant v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co., 5 P.3d 594 (OK 2000) (special-law inquiry requires a distinctive characteristic for discrimination)
Thomas v. Henry, 260 P.3d 1251 (OK 2011) (general statutes apply uniformly; distinction must be grounded in class reality)
In re Matter of the Oklahoma Dept. of Transportation, 64 P.3d 546 (OK 2002) (severability generally favored to save remaining statute)