Shadid v. K 9 University, LLC
2017 OK CIV APP 45
Okla. Civ. App.2017Background
- On Sept. 7, 2014, Christina Shadid was injured by a dog owned by Angel Soriano while working for K 9 University, LLC.
- Shadid filed a workers’ compensation claim (Sept. 2, 2015) that was resolved by a Joint Petition Settlement (Nov. 12, 2015).
- One year after the bite, Shadid sued K 9 University and Soriano in district court (Sept. 7, 2016), suing Soriano as the dog owner rather than as employer.
- Shadid voluntarily dismissed claims against K 9 University because of the exclusivity provision of the Administrative Workers’ Compensation Act (AWCA).
- Soriano moved to dismiss Shadid’s suit, arguing AWCA § 5 bars district-court tort claims even when the defendant is an employer wearing a different ‘‘persona’’ (e.g., dog owner).
- The trial court granted Soriano’s motion to dismiss; the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed, holding AWCA § 5 abrogates the dual-capacity doctrine and makes workers’ compensation the exclusive remedy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the dual-capacity doctrine allows a suit against an employer who also owns the dog | Shadid argued Soriano, as dog owner, occupies a second persona and can be sued in tort | Soriano argued 85A O.S. § 5 makes AWCA remedies exclusive regardless of multiple roles | Court held § 5 abrogates the dual-capacity doctrine; exclusive workers’ comp remedy applies |
| Whether AWCA § 5’s language is ambiguous as to ‘‘personas’’ | Shadid implicitly argued prior dual-capacity precedent still controls | Soriano argued the statutory language plainly excludes consideration of other roles/personas | Court applied plain-meaning construction and found the statute clearly abolishes persona-based exceptions |
Key Cases Cited
- Weber v. Armco, Inc., 663 P.2d 1221 (Okla. 1983) (seminal articulation of the dual-capacity doctrine)
- Fanning v. Brown, 85 P.3d 841 (Okla. 2004) (standard of review and pleading sufficiency on dismissal)
- Welch v. Crow, 206 P.3d 599 (Okla. 2009) (statutory construction reviewed de novo)
- Nickell v. Sumner, 943 P.2d 625 (Okla. 1997) (dog-bite statute imposes strict liability)