*1 382 pooling
ing prior being wisely proce- to a order is- We have held unit common law jurisdiction not a sued is fact material to evidentiary dural fetters and need rules power Corpora- the existence of the strictly Corporation control Commission ac- order, pooling tion to issue a of equiva- Commission tions.6 The creation common law a preliminary quasi jurisdictional judgment giant, lent to a roll is a and to me fact, procedural step unauthorized, prece- or condition step position. from this required Corpora- dent before the to exist present I suggest that reversal is an proceed tion and Commission can issue a departure unauthorized and broad from our pooling order. previous approach proceeding before Quasi jurisdictional Corporation facts not be in- Commission. quired into in a collateral and BARNES, I am authorized to state that therefore this Court should issue a writ of J., OPALA, J., V. C. and concur in the prohibition against the trial court. expressed. views herein
Judgment Roll Status majority raises the function of a keeper menial record under absolute Corporation of
control Commission to
the status of a in a Clerk Common Law gives predominantly It
Court.
adminis-
WILSEY,
CO.,
body, though admittedly
trative
a constitu-
BENNETT
a California
Corporation
Indemnity
one, possessing judicial,
legislative
tional
and Industrial
Petitioners,
Company,
Insurance
power,3
deciding
and executive
the status of
judgment
what shall
an
constitute
official
v.
granted
check,
roll.4 This status is
without
Hughes
and
Gerald GRANT
Paul
kind,
guidance
restraint
Co.,
Trucking
Respondents.
only
sumably
constitutional denials from
regulations might
such
be reviewable.
Hughes
Paul
Paul
Truck
HUGHES d/b/a
ing
Company,
Wilsey,
and
Bennett
Corporation
power
Commission’s
Corporation,
California
and Industrial
legislative
judicial
act in
and
areas is limit-
Indemnity
Company,
Insurance
Petition
words, I
nothing
ed.5 In other
find
within
ers,
9,
the Constitution of
Art.
Oklahoma:
Art.
1 and Art. 7
or the
statutes which
v.
authorizes
the establishment of officers
FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF BELLE
equivalent
with functions
to the Clerk of
VILLE, Administrator, Respondent.
(Common
Courts)
District Courts
Law
Nos.
(general) jurisdiction.
one of common law
Supreme
How
Court
Oklahoma.
Corporation
Commission’s
given
records
common law effect and
June
dignity by this Court? Who besides the
Rehearing
Aug.
Denied
Legislature
people
grant
or the
can
such
power? Certainly
Supreme
not the
Court
Oklahoma,
quasi
legislative body,
nor a
Corporation
Commission.
Commission,
Williams,
Corporation
(Okl.
Louis
St.
& S. F. R. Co. v.
P.2d
(1910); Muskogee
1968).
Pierce, Couch, Hendrickson, Johnston & Baysinger by Tracy Barbara M. and James Durant, petitioners. B. City, Venters, Horning, Harley E. Johnson & Johnson, City, Grove Kent S. for respondents.
OPALA, panel Justice: The en banc reversed this decision. It ruled that because the immedi- dispositive issue before us is whether ate had principal no insurance the one-year statute of limitations secondarily was liable. Each arrested, scribed 85 O.S.1971 43 *3 compensation. claimant was awarded On against (statu- secondarily principal a liable appeal by principal the employer the two tory) employer, by timely filing the of a disposition. cases were consolidated for against claim an uninsured immediate em- Appeals The Court of affirmed the en banc responsible primarily pay- who is decision, panel’s holding timely that the fil- compensation. grant ment of We certiorari ing against of a claim the uninsured imme- timely-filed and hold that a claim will not employer diate operated to arrest the limi- operate compensation pro- to commence a period tation both as to the immediate and ceeding against party-respondent a so defi- statutory (principal) the employer. ciently named on the claim form as to vent the trial sending tribunal’s staff from Appeals’ The Court of decision under re- filing right entity. notice of its the clearly predicated view here is on the au- thority of Plumbing Lane Construction & A truck driver was killed and her co-driv- appears That case Green.5 to rest on er highway in a accident. Two parties-respondent the notion a com- separate timely claim forms were filed in pensation proceeding by op- stand identified proper the parties-respon- forum as Implicit assump- eration of law. in it is an dent both employer the immediate tion that the choice of adversaries accom- incorporated entity some Oklahoma mistak- plished automatically as a result of one’s enly principal employer. believed to be the employer status vis-a-vis the worker The entity’s Oklahoma answer revealed at the time of rather than that neither it nor its insurance carrier was timely conscious act of the claimant identi- correctly the party-respondent named in the fying on the face his claim form those cases. Amended claim forms —filed after legally responsible who are him. period the limitations had run —named as reject parties We must the notion that the principal the corpora- a California liable for matter how de- —no tion and listed entity its insurer —an differ- ficiently timely identified on the filed claim ent from the carrier originally mis- automatically form —are amenable to some named respondent.3 It is undis- imposable joinder litigants compen- in a puted that the successively prin- two named may sation claim. So far as Lane be in cipal employers and their two different in- pronouncement, conflict with this it is to be separate surers were all distinct and bodies treated as withdrawn.6 corporate.4 Neither employer entity was a' subsidiary alter-ego of the other. Nor language prescribes The clear § was either of the two single one-year different insurers for filing time limit for corporations a subsidiary alter-ego against any person compen- claim liable for judge the other. The trial held the sation. The statute makes no distinction claims against principal were barred as the liability between primary those who bear otherwise, stipulated 1. Unless indicated all citations are Both claimants that the misnamed corporation principal to sections which were in effect at the time of was not the employer. the accident and all section references are to Title 85. August 2. The accident occurred August claim forms were filed In Lane we held that the 43§ limitation period begin against princi- does not to run pal employer statutory employer 3. The Oklahoma and California entities had under 85 —the wholly similar names and were at one time 11—until the claimant has discover- O.S.1971 corporation. owned subsidiaries of another ed that the immediate is uninsured. legal relationship That was not in existence at was said not discovery the time of the accident in suit. to be established until that is made. secondarily nothing compensa- and those who he held lia- Since there is in the legislative ble. Lane alters that norm tion laws which alters the incidence of stat- postponing point at which a claim utory limitations vis-a-vis the liability im- against principal employer accrues to posable principal employer, on a 43§ “discovery” employ- of the immediate being time bar must be viewed as co-exten- er’s uninsured status. result of this sive with that which runs the imme- rule is that the 43 limitations powerless diate are Courts principal employer be tolled vis-a-vis prescribe exceptions to limitations span clearly open-ended. over a explicit provision which clear or is made This is so because Lane sets limit no outer legislature.10 for a claimant’s freedom to make the dis- compensation proceedings In some more covery that triggers one-year peri- 43 *4 employer may than one be held for liable od. injuries by the same sustained a worker. purpose The fundamental applica- This in is true cases in which there is both a ble time limits in any 43 is the same as in general special those, and “master” and in other limitations statute. It is to one, like this recognizes where the law two litigant unexpected from the enforcement employers, principal. immediate and The successfully stale claims too old to be employer primary respon- immediate bears investigated and defended.7 In civil ac- sibility, and the liabili- tions, party, sought brought who is to be ty is While we secondary.11 frequently by into the case amendment filed after the secondary primary make mention of and run, may plead limitations had joinder liability purposes, for we treat statute in liability.8 bar of his There is no obligors two as statutorily classes of liable in statutory warrant or case law for a dif- category in as are substantially the same applied compensation ferent rule to be in law.12 defendants a tort case at common statutory cases under time bar pursue compensa- A is free to his claimant employer compensation afforded an in cases all, of, remedy against tion one is no less substantial than that which is multiple statutorily responsible for entities ordinary available to a defendant in actions payment he to compensation.13 of his It is at law or equity purpose in suits. The whom the court looks to choose the combat- provide only laws is to not will be ants whom the demands remedy injured workers is both that pressed. compensa- Neither in tort nor in expeditious independent and of fault con- cept upon the employers adversary but also to afford a limited tion claims is an thrust short, liability. by operation determinate9 law.14 In claimant doctrine, Barnes, Okl., Similarly, Special Indemnity 13. Fund v. under the loaned-servant 434 218, [1967], general (lending) spe- P.2d 220-221 either the master or master, both, (borrowing) cial could Okl., Jones, 300, [1962]; 8. Seitz v. 370 P.2d 302 payment looked to pensation. O’Baugh Drilling the worker for of com- Lietch, Okl., 935, [1976]; Lake v. 550 P.2d 937 Control, Well Cummings v. Board of Education of Oklahoma Inc., Okl., 355, [1980]; 609 P.2d 359 Ishmael v. 989, City, [1942], 125 P.2d 993 Henderson, Okl., 267-268 [1955]. choice, again, worker. is that of the Light Clapper, 9. Bradford Electric 286 145, 160-161, 571, 576, U.S. 52 S.Ct. 76 L.Ed. law, Pryse Implicit in recent case Monument [1931]; Mundy, 1035-1036 McLean Kay County, Co. v. District Court of 1955]; So.2d Martensen [Fla. principle [1979], that vis-a-vis is the P.2d 435 Mo.App. Schutte Lumber employer the same limitations an uninsured S.W.2d 316-317 govern, both under the Workers’ they negligence, in law as do Law and common Cummings v. Board of Education of Oklaho- Lane, respect employer. with supra to an insured City, supra ma note 8. harmony longer note is hence no with later decisional law. This is so because 11. 85 O.S.1971 employer’s unin- under Lane the immediate Hohimer, extending 12. Ellis & Lewis v. affords a basis for sured status alone the time bar. [1931]. injuries occurring from immediate accidental after the act of opinion.19
as party-respondent the claim form —be effective date of this on person that not —will not it- insured or granted, Certiorari trial tribunal’s self statutory hale the into Ap- awards are and the sustained Court of liability independent court.15 The of an peals’ opinion publica- is withdrawn from contractor qua uninsured immediate em- tion. automatically imputable to his hirer, the principal right IRWIN, J., BARNES, J., V. C. C. invoke vindication of a LAVENDER, JJ., HODGES and concur. claim must originate work- WILLIAMS, SIMMS, DOOLIN and er in whose favor it runs. HARGRAVE, JJ., dissent. Lane, longer As we can no follow we SIMMS, Justice, dissenting: pronounce now timely-filed compen that a opinion I concur in result of this sation claim operate will to commence a claimants, but must dissent to the proceeding against any party-respondent majority’s “withdrawing” Lane1 shown on the claim form a name or changing others the rule for who will find designation sufficiently identifies that themselves in the same situation as these entity for delivery of notice either to it or claimants. to its insurance carrier. *5 O.S.1971, provision limitation bar, Applying this test to the case at question, in reads as follows: we conclude that the right compensation “The to claim under designation tribunal-prescribed on the form this Act shall forever be barred unless failed to identify employer sufficiently that (1) within after or year one the to effect delivery notice right of to the death, compensation a claim for thereun-
party or to its insurance carrier.16 No claim
der shall be
filed
Commission.”
was
against
hence commenced
that party-
respondent
period
until after the limitations
majority,
Unlike
I
language
the
find no
had run.17
there
the
supports
which
notion that
claim filed with the Commission must name
in these
rely
claimants
cases
on
is,
be,
everyone
may
who
liable for com-
open-ended
the
of
rule
Lane. That rule
pensation
the
and that
statute will bar
was effective at
time of
the
the accident
against
claim
so
one not
named.
when
rights
parties
the
of the
attached.
It
I
of
contrary,
To the
believe the Court
must
govern
proceed
be allowed
to
Appeals
analyzed
correctly
the statute and
ings. We therefore
sustain the awards
proper application
its
as follows:
made
panel.
departure
the en banc
Our
pronounced
from the rule in
plain
in this
“In
the
language,
specifies
statute
Lane —
opinion
operate prospectively18
filing
it is the
of a claim —not the
—shall
apply only to
those claims which
respondents
arise
of
tolls the
—that
43;
dealing
pure
O.S.Supp.
15. We are
§§
not
here with a
3.4 and
Rule
form of
joint
Court,
liability. There,
Compensation
co-obligor
Workers’
homa,
State of
service on a
Okla-
O.S.Supp.
App.
will arrest
Ch. 4
limitations
defendants who
not been
have
served. See 12
Socony
Co., Okl.,
97;
18. Bomford v.
Mobil
Renshaw,
Oil
O.S.1971 §
Kerns v.
[1968];
720-721
American
Title
First
[1933],
20 P.2d
Okl.,
Ewing,
Company
Trust
&
403 P.2d
[1965];
Skelly
Poafpybitty
Company,
496
Okl.,
Oil
wrong
16. Had this been
where
a case
de-
394 P.2d
right
given
fendant was named but the
one was
notice, the situation
be similar
would
to that in
opinion
19. The
of this
effective date
the date
Cartwright
Industries, Inc.,
v. Atlas Chemical
promulgation
rehearing
if
be
of its
sought,
should
Okl.,
scribed that the employer’s noncompliance
mediate after the
Act not be discovered until begun. has provides:
Section