PEOPLELINK, LLC. v. BEAR
2014 OK 65
| Okla. | 2014Background
- Claimant (Bear) injured on March 4, 2011; workers' compensation award granted by a three-judge Workers' Compensation Court panel.
- Employer/insurer (Peoplelink, LLC. and Arch Insurance) sought appellate review, arguing the award was against the clear weight of the evidence (standard in effect at time of injury under 85 O.S.Supp.2010, § 3.6).
- Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, declined to apply the "clear weight of the evidence" standard, concluding legislative prescription of standards violated separation of powers and applying the any-competent-evidence standard from Parks.
- Supreme Court had conflicting Court of Civil Appeals decisions (Westoak v. DeLeon vs. Harvey v. Auto Plus) and previously decided in Kentucky Fried Chicken of McAlester v. Snell that the Legislature may prescribe the clear-weight standard, overruling Westoak and Harvey.
- The Supreme Court identified ambiguity created by § 3.6 combined with § 26 (which declares WCC factual findings final) and clarified the proper approach: appellate courts must apply the "against the clear weight of the evidence" standard for injuries during § 3.6's effective period and give deference analogous to equity review.
- Supreme Court vacated the Court of Civil Appeals opinion and remanded for Division IV to review whether the award was against the clear weight of the evidence, explaining procedural burdens for raising that claim on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicable standard of appellate review for WCC awards for injuries on 3/4/2011 | (Peoplelink) The Court of Civil Appeals should apply any-competent-evidence (Parks) because § 3.6 is an improper legislative intrusion | (Bear/WCC) § 3.6 prescribes the clear-weight-of-the-evidence standard and is valid; appellate courts must apply it | § 3.6's clear-weight standard applies to injuries in its effective period; Westoak/Harvey were overruled as inconsistent with Snell |
| Separation-of-powers challenge to § 3.6 | Legislature cannot prescribe appellate standards; only courts set standards | Legislature lawfully enacted § 3.6; not a separation-of-powers violation per Snell | Legislature did not violate separation of powers by enacting § 3.6; courts must apply it |
| Degree of deference and analogy for applying clear-weight standard | Appellate review should be less deferential (emphasize review) | Appellate courts should afford deference similar to equity appeals, respecting trial fact-finding | Appellate courts must show deference analogous to equity review; trial court credibility/weight determinations carry strong presumption |
| Appellate burden to obtain clear-weight reversal | General assertion of error suffices | Party seeking review must specify with record references why award is against the clear weight | Party seeking review must "state with specificity" the record evidence improperly weighed; general assignments insufficient; appellate courts will not search record sua sponte |
Key Cases Cited
- Parks v. Norman Mun. Hosp., 684 P.2d 548 (Okla. 1984) (articulates the any-competent-evidence standard applicable under § 26)
- Williams Cos. v. Dunkelgod, 295 P.3d 1107 (Okla. 2012) (applies standard-of-review in effect on date of injury)
- Robert L. Wheeler, Inc. v. Scott, 818 P.2d 475 (Okla. 1991) (describes appellate deference in equity cases)
- Oklahoma Co. v. O'Neil, 440 P.2d 978 (Okla. 1968) (equity-review standard: reverse only if clearly against weight of evidence)
- Peyton v. McCaslin, 417 P.2d 316 (Okla. 1966) (trial court's advantage in observing witnesses warrants appellate deference)
- Peters v. Golden Oil Co., 600 P.2d 330 (Okla. 1979) (requires specific assignments and record references to obtain appellate review)
- Westoak Indus., Inc. v. DeLeon, 299 P.3d 878 (Okla. Civ. App. 2013) (Court of Civil Appeals decision holding legislative prescription of standards unconstitutional — discussed/overruled)
- Harvey v. Auto Plus of Woodward, 287 P.3d 410 (Okla. Civ. App. 2012) (Court of Civil Appeals decision reaching opposite conclusion from Westoak — discussed/overruled)
- Yocum v. Greenbriar Nursing Home, 130 P.3d 213 (Okla. 2005) (Supreme Court guidance on disposition when vacating Court of Civil Appeals opinions)