GRAHAM v. D & K OILFIELD SERVICES, INC.
Case Number: 115898
THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA
Decided: 09/18/2017
2017 OK 72
COMBS, C.J.
Cite as: 2017 OK 72, __ P.3d __
NOTICE: THIS OPINION HAS NOT BEEN RELEASED FOR PUBLICATION. UNTIL RELEASED, IT IS SUBJECT TO REVISION OR WITHDRAWAL.
RAY GRAHAM, Petitioner,
v.
D & K OILFIELD SERVICES, INC., COMPSOURCE MUTUAL INS. CO., and THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, Respondents.
ON APPEAL FROM THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION
¶0 Workers’ compensation claimant, who suffered a hernia and recurrent hernia due to work, requested a contested hearing on the constitutionality of the hernia provision of the Administrative Workers’ Compensation Act,
ORDER OF THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION
VACATED; CAUSE REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED FOR
PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION
Bob Burke, Oklahoma City, OK, for Petitioner.
Peter J. Mills, McCormick, Schoenenberger & Gish, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Respondents D & K Oilfield Services, Inc. and Compsource Mutual Ins. Co.
John N. Hermes & Andrew J. Morris, McAfee & Taft, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Amicus Curiae the State Chamber of Oklahoma.
¶1 The question presented to this Court is whether
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2 Petitioner Ray Graham (Graham) was employed by Respondent D & K Oilfield Services, Inc. (Employer) and sustained a left inguinal hernia while engaged in lifting heavy objects on February 22, 2016. Graham sought compensation under the Administrative Workers’ Compensation Act, timely filing a CC-Form-3 on May 9, 2016. Graham also filed a Notice of Constitutional Issues and Brief in Support, challenging the constitutionality of
¶3 Employer admitted Graham sustained a compensable hernia injury, paid all reasonable and necessary medical benefits, and paid Graham six weeks of temporary total disability.2 On November 15, 2016, Employer filed its brief in opposition to Graham‘s constitutional challenge to
¶4 An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) held a hearing concerning this matter on January 19, 2017. The ALJ accepted the parties’ stipulations concerning the Commission‘s jurisdiction, Graham‘s employment status, the compensability of the injury, the reasonableness of medical treatment, and the
¶5 At the hearing, Graham argued the unconstitutionality of
¶6 The ALJ filed an Order Determining Compensability and Awarding Hernia Benefits on January 19, 2017. The ALJ determined that Employer provided all reasonable and necessary medical treatment for Graham‘s hernia injury, including the two surgeries. The ALJ further determined that
The Legislature in its prerogative has provided a specific benefit schedule for all compensable hernia injuries. Under our current statute, any claimant who suffers a compensable hernia is entitled to receive all reasonable and necessary medical treatment and the equivalent of six (6) weeks of temporary total disability as a hernia benefit. Absent a second hernia, or a consequential injury, there is no provision for additional compensation. The Legislature did not provide for an award of permanent partial disability for any case involving a single hernia, which has actually been the law for a long time.
Because the claimant presents only a case of a single hernia, for which he has received the statutory mandated benefits of medical treatment and 6 weeks of temporary total disability, I conclude he is not entitled to any additional compensation.
Order Determining Compensability and Awarding Hernia Benefits, r. 55.
¶7 On January 23, 2017, Graham appealed to the Commission en banc, once more asserting the unconstitutionality of
¶8 Graham filed a petition for review and a motion to retain with this Court on March 27, 2017, continuing to assert the unconstitutionality of
II.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶9 The law in effect at the time of the injury controls both the award of benefits and the appellate standard of review where workers’ compensation is concerned. Brown v. Claims Mgmt. Resources, Inc., 2017 OK 13, ¶9, 391 P.3d 111; Holliman v. Twister Drilling Co., 2016 OK 82, ¶5, 377 P.3d 133. Graham‘s injury occurred on February 22, 2016. As Graham‘s injury occurred after the effective date of the Administrative Workers’ Compensation Act (AWCA),
C. The judgment, decision or award of the Commission shall be final and conclusive on all questions within its jurisdiction between the parties unless an action is commenced in the Supreme Court of this state to review the judgment, decision or
award within twenty (20) days of being sent to the parties. Any judgment, decision or award made by an administrative law judge shall be stayed until all appeal rights have been waived or exhausted. The Supreme Court may modify, reverse, remand for rehearing, or set aside the judgment or award only if it was: 1. In violation of constitutional provisions;
2. In excess of the statutory authority or jurisdiction of the Commission;
3. Made on unlawful procedure;
4. Affected by other error of law;
5. Clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, material, probative and substantial competent evidence;
6. Arbitrary or capricious;
7. Procured by fraud; or
8. Missing findings of fact on issues essential to the decision.
¶10 The issue of a statute‘s constitutional validity is a question of law subject to de novo review. Brown, 2017 OK 13, ¶10; Lee v. Bueno, 2016 OK 97, ¶6, 381 P.3d 736; Butler v. Jones ex rel., State ex rel., Okla. Dep‘t of Corrections, 2013 OK 105, ¶5, 321 P.3d 161. Under that standard, this Court assumes plenary, independent, and non-deferential authority to reexamine the lower tribunal‘s legal rulings. Brown, 2017 OK 13, ¶10; Lee, 2016 OK 97, ¶6; Crownover v. Keel, 2015 OK 35, ¶12, 357 P.3d 470.
¶11 There is a strong presumption which favors legislative enactments. Jacobs Ranch, L.L.C. v. Smith, 2006 OK 34, ¶18, 148 P.3d 842; Barnes v. Barnes, 2005 OK 1, ¶5, 107 P.3d 560; Nelson v. Nelson, 1998 OK 10, ¶12, 954 P.2d 1219. The presumed constitutionality of a legislative enactment is rebutted only when the enactment is prohibited by either the Oklahoma Constitution or federal law. Torres v. Seaboard Foods, LLC, 2016 OK 20, ¶17, 373 P.3d 1057. The party seeking a statute‘s invalidation as unconstitutional has the burden to show the statute is clearly, palpably, and plainly inconsistent with the Oklahoma Constitution. Lafalier v. Lead-Impacted Communities Relocation Assistance Trust, 2010 OK 48, ¶15, 237 P.3d 181; EOG Resources Marketing, Inc. v. Okla. State Bd. of Equalization, 2008 OK 95, ¶13, 196 P.3d 511.
III.
ANALYSIS
¶12 At issue in this cause is the constitutionality of a provision of the AWCA concerning compensability and benefits for hernias. The challenged provision,
A. A hernia is not a compensable injury unless the injured employee can prove by a preponderance of the evidence that it meets the definition of “compensable injury” under this act and:
1. The occurrence of the hernia followed as the result of sudden effort, severe strain, or the application of force directly to the abdominal wall;
2. There was severe pain in the hernial region;
3. The pain caused the employee‘s work to be substantially affected;
4. Notice of the occurrence was given to the employer within five (5) days thereafter; and
5. The physical distress following the occurrence of the hernia was such as to require the attendance of a licensed physician.
B. 1. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 45 of this act, if it is determined that a hernia is a compensable injury under subsection A of this section, the injured employee shall be entitled to temporary total disability for six (6) weeks.
2. If the injured employee refuses to permit the hernia operation if recommended by a physician, he or she shall be entitled to temporary total disability for thirteen (13) weeks in addition to appropriate medical care.
C. If the injured employee dies within one (1) year as a direct and sole result of the hernia or a radical operation of the hernia, the deceased employee‘s dependents shall be entitled to death compensation under Section 48 of this act.
violation of
¶13 Graham asserts
¶14 Generally,
(1) if there is a legitimate government interest (a) articulated in the legislation or (b) championed by the parties or (c) expressed by a recognized public policy in support of the legislation, and (2) if that interest is reasonably advanced by the legislation.
¶15 Graham compares the six-week limit on TTD benefits for hernias to the 180-day limitation on cumulative trauma injuries this Court found to be unconstitutional in Torres v. Seaboard Foods, LLC, 2016 OK 20, 373 P.3d 1057. In Torres, this Court examined
¶16 Much as this Court accepted the legitimate state interests raised by the Respondent in Torres, we accept those articulated by Employer in this matter. See Torres, 2016 OK 20, ¶30.6 Employer contends the legitimate interest served by
¶18 However, this cause is distinguishable from Torres. The 180-day limitation on cumulative trauma claims at issue in that cause operated to completely bar a class of claimants from recovery of benefits, without any rational basis for the distinction with regards to serving a stated goal of reducing fraud. See Torres, 2016 OK 20, ¶¶42-48.7 The class distinction in this cause is not based on an arbitrary length of employment, as was the case in Torres, but rather is drawn based on injury type: employees with a hernia injury. Title
¶19 The six-week period for TTD benefits chosen by the Legislature aligns with the higher end of the expected recovery time for hernias and the return to work scale. Respondent‘s Brief in Opposition to Claimant‘s Constitutional Challenge to Hernia Benefits, Ex. 1, Record on Appeal, pp. 36-48. Further, specific week-based limits on TTD for hernia injuries have been a part of the Oklahoma workers’ compensation scheme nearly since its inception in the early twentieth century.9
¶20 Graham‘s argument is similar to one this Court considered Rivas v. Parkland Manor, 2000 OK 68, 12 P.3d 452 (recognized as superseded by statute on other grounds in Evans & Associates Utility Services v. Espinosa, 2011 OK 81, 264 P.3d 1190). In Rivas, this Court considered and rejected the idea that limitations on workers’ compensation benefits are unconstitutional simply because the benefits may be inadequate for the disability caused by the injury, because it is not this Court‘s role to question the wisdom or policy of legislation. Specifically, we noted:
While the ... award provided ... may seem inadequate for the disability caused by [the] injury, the Court cannot interfere “with the wisdom or policy of the legislation[.]” Adams, 162 P. at 946. “[O]ur inquiry [is] limited to the one of power upon the part of the Legislature to enact such legislation; and, when the existence of this power is determined, the question of details is within the province of the Legislature.” Id. If the amount of recovery “is too small the people have the power, either through their elected officials or by their right of initiative petition, to increase it[.]” Hughes Drilling Co. v. Crawford, 1985 OK 16, 697 P.2d 525, 530.
Though the Court in Rivas was concerned with limitations on the amount of Permanent Partial Disability found in the old Workers’ Compensation Act, the underlying constitutional principles governing the Legislature‘s power remain the same:
The formulation of the particular elements and details of the Workers’ Compensation Act clearly falls within the legislature‘s province.
Okla. Const. Art. 5, § 36 ; Adams, 162 P. at 942. The legislature can limit the amount of PPD an injured worker receives. It is within the legislature‘s authority to set that limit at 100%.
¶21 Limitations on the specific amounts of benefits to be received for a particular injury are well within the Legislature‘s power and in the case of
B. Title
special law.
¶22 Graham also argues
¶23
¶24 The first prong requires a determination on whether the law in question is special or general. Vasquez, 2016 OK 89, ¶11; Reynolds, 1988 OK 88, ¶13. A general law relates to persons or things as a class rather than relating to particular persons or things. City of Enid v. Public Employees Relations Bd., 2006 OK 16, ¶8, 133 P.3d 281; Grant v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 2000 OK 41, ¶5, 5 P.3d 594; Reynolds, 1988 OK 88, ¶14. General laws need not operate upon every locality in the state, but must apply equally to all classes similarly situated, and apply to like conditions and subjects. City of Enid, 2006 OK 16, ¶8; Grable v. Childers, 1936 OK 273, ¶6, 56 P.2d 357. A special law, on the other hand, relates to a part of the entire class of similarly affected persons and separates that part for different treatment. Vasquez, 2016 OK 89, ¶12; City of Enid, 2006 OK 16, ¶8; Grant, 2000 OK 14, ¶5.
¶25 In order to determine if a law is special or general, the first prong requires us to identify the class affected by the law. Vasquez, 2016 OK 89, ¶12; Reynolds, 1988 OK 88, ¶14. The overarching class covered by the AWCA is injured employees. Vasquez, 2016 OK 89, ¶18 n.15. Title
¶26 However, our inquiry does not end there. The Court must also determine if a general law is applicable and if it is not, whether the statute is a permissible special law. The more general law in this instance would be
¶27 Under the third prong, the court must determine if the special legislation is reasonably and substantially related to a valid legislative objective. Reynolds, 1988 OK 88, ¶16. Title
C. Title
remedy in violation of
¶28 Graham also asserts that because
¶29 Early in the twentieth century, this Court established that
That this was a mandate to the judiciary and was not intended as a limitation upon the legislative branch of the government seems clear. Neither do we think it was intended to preserve a particular remedy for given causes of action in any certain court of the state, nor was it intended to deprive the Legislature of the power to abolish remedies for future accruing causes of action (where not otherwise specifically prohibited), or to create new remedies for other wrongs as in its wisdom it might determine.
In applying that above interpretation, the Court rejected the argument that
[T]o preserve a right of action in the courts of the state to persons for injuries that may happen in the future, and thereby prevent the Legislature from passing laws that abolish existing remedies for a cause of action recognized by the law at the time the Constitution was adopted, though the injury had not in fact occurred, nor the right of action vested prior to the passage of such law.
¶30 Far more recently, this Court considered the application of
The formulation of the particular elements and details of the Workers’ Compensation Act clearly falls within the legislature‘s province.
Okla. Const. Art. 5, § 36 ; Adams, 162 P. at 942. The legislature can limit the amount of PPD an injured worker receives. It is within the legislature‘s authority to set that limit at 100%.Rivas invokes the remedy guarantee to attack this substantive legislative policy choice. However, this Court has already determined
Art. 2, § 6 was not “intended to preserve a particular remedy for given causes of action in any certain court of the state, nor was it intended to deprive the Legislature of the power to abolish remedies for future accruing causes of action ..., or to create new remedies for other wrongs as in its wisdom it might determine.” Adams, 162 P. at 942. Accordingly, this Court cannot grant Rivas the relief he seeks underArt. 2, § 6 , because the legislature is under no obligation to preserve a certain remedy for Rivas and the courts are, in turn, not able to provide a remedy where the legislature has not provided one.21 The remedy clause does not constrain the legislature, but rather compels the judiciary to be open to all persons with actionable causes. In Oklahoma,
Art. 2, § 6 does not provide an avenue for Rivas to attack the actions of the legislature. Because it is the legislature and not the judiciary that limited Rivas’ PPD compensation, this proposition must fail.
¶31 The remedy provided to Graham by the AWCA included six TTD payments at 70% of the state‘s average weekly wage, as well as the payment of all Graham‘s medical bills associated with the injury. Graham‘s argument is not that
IV.
THE APPLICATION OF
¶32 Issues remain, however, concerning the proper application of
ALJ CURTIN: All right. Understanding the contested issues -- well, Mr. Burke, you are, as to a finding of fact or as to the facts in this case, you do stipulate and that the claimant, the nature of the claimant‘s injury is a hernia only. Is that correct?
MR. BURKE: Yes, Your Honor.
ALJ CURTIN: And it‘s only one hernia?
MR. BURKE: Yes. It is recurrent. But it‘s only one location.
Transcript of Proceedings of Hearing Held on December 20, 2016, in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, before the Honorable T. Shane Curtin, Administrative Law Judge, p. 14:12-21.
¶33 Prior decisions of this Court made under previous iterations of the old Workers’ Compensation Code have held a recurrent hernia to be a recurrence of the original injury, rather than a new hernia, unless it was caused by a second accident or an independent intervening cause. See Rialto Min. Co. v. Perry, 1948 OK 179, ¶¶10-12, 196 P.2d 687; Safeway Stores v. Brumley, 1942 OK 275, ¶2, 128 P.2d 1006.15 This could work to the benefit of claimants, as the Workers Compensation Court was able to award Permanent Partial Disability on the basis of the return of the original injury, even if a claimant had switched employers and the original hernia injury had not resulted in permanent disability. See Safeway Stores, 1942 OK 275, ¶5. Here the record reveals Graham was injured February 26, 2016, and was not medically released until September 6, 2016. A period of 7 months for which under the legislative direction of the AWCA entitles him to only 6 weeks temporary disability pay at 70% of his average weekly wage. The economic impact to Graham is beyond severe and his recourse is beyond minimal.
¶34 In Corbeil v. Emricks Van & Storage, 2017 OK 71, ___ P.3d ___, this Court considered the interpretation and application of
¶35 This Court‘s decision in Corbeil supports the conclusion that the Legislature, through the language of
V. CONCLUSION
¶36 Though Graham has failed to meet the heavy burden required to demonstrate the unconstitutionality of
ORDER OF THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION
VACATED; CAUSE REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED FOR
PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION
ALL JUSTICES CONCUR