CARLOCK v. WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION
No. 112607 (Surviving Case No.); No. 112613 (Cons. w/No. 112607); No. 112653 (Cons. w/No. 112607)
THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA
April 17, 2014
2014 OK 29
v.
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Respondent.
DONNA STUDEMAN, Petitioner,
v.
THE HONORABLE TROY WILSON, SR., in his Official Capacity only as Chairman of the Oklahoma Workers’ Compensation Commission; THE HONORABLE DENISE ENGLE, in her Official Capacity only as Commissioner of the Oklahoma Workers’ Compensation Commission; and THE HONORABLE ROBERT GILLILAND, in his Official Capacity only as Commissioner of the Workers’ Compensation Commission, Respondents.
JOSE BARRERA, Petitioner,
v.
THE HONORABLE TROY WILSON, SR., in his Official Capacity only as Chairman of the Oklahoma Workers’ Compensation Commission; THE HONORABLE DENISE ENGLE, in her Official Capacity only as Commissioner of the Oklahoma Workers’ Compensation Commission; and THE HONORABLE ROBERT GILLILAND, in his Official Capacity only as Commissioner of the Workers’ Compensation Commission, Respondents.
ORDER ASSUMING ORIGINAL JURISDICTION AND GRANTING RELIEF
¶1 Petitioners’ applications to assume original jurisdiction are granted insofar as they seek declaratory relief to resolve an important public law controversy; that is, jurisdiction to review orders and awards made by the Court of Existing Claims for injuries occurring prior to February 1, 2014, pursuant to
¶2 All aspects of the adjudication of claims for injuries occurring prior to February 1, 2014, are governed by the law in effect at the time of the injury,
DONE IN CONFERENCE BY ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT THIS 17th DAY OF APRIL, 2014.
/S/CHIEF JUSTICE
¶3 COLBERT, C.J., REIF, V.C.J., KAUGER, WATT, WINCHESTER, EDMONDSON, TAYLOR, COMBS, and GURICH, JJ., concur.
TAYLOR, J., concurring.
“I fully concur in this Order but write further on the issue of possible appointments to fill any future vacancy on the Court of Existing Claims. That claim raises nothing but pure speculation and is most certainly not an issue ripe for judicial review today. It is also pure speculation to assume that the future caseload of the Court of Existing Claims would even justify the filling of any future vacancy. Attrition may be the prudent rule.”