ROBINSON v. FAIRVIEW FELLOWSHIP HOME FOR SENIOR CITIZENS, INC.
2016 OK 42
| Okla. | 2016Background
- Cynthia Robinson, a nurse's aide, slipped on an icy sidewalk during her lunch break and sought workers' compensation for neck, left shoulder, and left knee injuries.
- Employer admitted employment but denied the injury arose in the course and scope of employment under 85A O.S. Supp. 2013 § 2(13).
- Robinson also argued that if § 2(13) barred recovery, the statute was an unconstitutional special law that denied her a remedy.
- The ALJ denied compensation and declined to decide the constitutional challenge, citing administrative limits; the Workers' Compensation Commission affirmed that it could not decide the constitutional claim.
- The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed without reaching the constitutional question and suggested a district court declaratory action; Robinson sought certiorari to the Oklahoma Supreme Court.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether the Workers' Compensation Commission can determine, in an adjudicative proceeding, that a provision of Title 85A is unconstitutional as applied to a party and whether such decisions are reviewable by the courts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May the Workers' Compensation Commission decide whether a Title 85A provision is unconstitutional as applied in a pending commission proceeding? | Robinson: Commission must decide the as-applied constitutionality in the proceeding; otherwise claimant lacks an administrative remedy. | Employer/Commission: Constitutional claims must be decided by courts, not the administrative commission. | Yes. The Commission exercising adjudicative authority may refuse to apply a statute to a party if application is unconstitutional as applied. |
| Is the Commission limited to only non-constitutional factfinding and must defer constitutional issues to district court? | Robinson: Deferment forces duplicative litigation and undermines AWCA exclusivity. | Commission: Administrative agency lacks power to decide constitutional issues; parties should seek judicial declaration. | No. The AWCA’s grant of adjudicative power includes resolution of legal (including as-applied constitutional) questions arising in claims before the Commission. |
| Can the Commission declare a statute facially unconstitutional? | Robinson: N/A (she sought as-applied relief). | Commission/Defendant: Even if Commission could decide, it should not decide facial challenges. | The Commission cannot determine facial invalidity; it may only decide constitutionality as applied to parties before it. |
| Are Commission decisions on as-applied constitutionality subject to appellate review? | Robinson: Yes; review by this Court is available and required. | Commission: Such issues are for courts and subject to judicial review if raised in appeal. | Yes. Commission decisions are subject to review by the Oklahoma Supreme Court (and Court of Civil Appeals when properly assigned). |
Key Cases Cited
- Dow Jones & Co. v. State ex rel. Okla. Tax Comm'n, 787 P.2d 843 (Okla. 1990) (addressed limits on administrative agencies declaring statutes unconstitutional)
- Yocum v. Greenbriar Nursing Home, 130 P.3d 213 (Okla. 2005) (administrative boards exercising adjudicative authority function like courts)
- Bowen v. State ex rel. Okla. Real Estate Appraiser Bd., 270 P.3d 133 (Okla. 2011) (agency acting in adjudicative capacity compared to courts)
- Coates v. Fallin, 316 P.3d 924 (Okla. 2013) (Supreme Court’s duty to review constitutionality when presented in a justiciable case)
- Adams v. Iten Biscuit Co., 162 P. 938 (Okla. 1917) (historical context on prompt, certain, and inexpensive remedy under workers' compensation)