Justia Oklahoma Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Claimant Nancy Bruce worked as a Certified Nurse's Assistant, or "residential life staff aide," for the Oklahoma Department of Human Services for twenty-six years. Her duties consisted primarily of lifting clients, cleaning them up, feeding them, and daily care. In 2012, Claimant was injured while lifting one such client. Although her Employer admitted the injury, the trial court denied compensability finding Claimant's employment was not the major cause of her injury. Claimant appealed, and a three-judge panel reversed and found that Claimant's employment was the major cause of the injury to her neck. Employer appealed, and the Court of Civil Appeals reversed the order of the three-judge panel. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the three-judge panel's decision finding Claimant's work-related injury was the major cause of Claimant's neck injury was not against the clear weight of the evidence. The Court therefore vacated the Court of appeals' judgment and reinstated the order of the three-judge panel. View "Dept. of Human Svcs v. Bruce" on Justia Law

Petitioner Cynthia Robinson worked as a Nurse's Aide for Employer Fairview Fellowship Home for Senior Citizens, and was injured in early 2014. Petitioner requested a finding of injury to her neck, left shoulder, and left knee, as well as temporary total disability. Employer admitted that she was an employee on the date of the accident but denied that her injury arose out of and in the course of her employment. Petitioner argued that if her injury was not compensable, then 85A O.S. Supp. 2013 section 2(13) was an unconstitutional special law and unconstitutionally denied her a remedy for her injury. The ALJ found Petitioner's injury was not in the course and scope of employment, and thus, not compensable. The ALJ declined to address Petitioner's constitutional arguments. Petitioner appealed to the Workers' Compensation Commission, and the Commission affirmed the decision of the ALJ. After Petitioner filed her Petition for Certiorari in this Court, the Attorney General filed notice of his intent to provide his views concerning the authority of the Workers' Compensation Commission to address constitutional issues and the ability of the courts to review those decisions. The Supreme Court concluded that the Workers' Compensation Commission had the power to determine whether a provision of Title 85A was being unconstitutionally applied to a particular party in a proceeding before the Commission. The Court of Civil Appeals' opinion in this case was vacated, the Commission's decision in this case was vacated and the judgment was reversed and remanded for a new hearing before the assigned ALJ. View "Robinson v. Fairview Fellowship Home for Senior Citizens, Inc." on Justia Law

This was a medical malpractice case premised in part on the doctrine of informed consent. Appellant Teresa Allen swallowed a small nail. She went to Duncan Regional Hospital's emergency room. Appellee John Harrison, D.O., emergency room physician (Physician), examined Allen. An X-ray confirmed the presence of a foreign body in Allen's stomach, just below the diaphragm. Based on Physician's assessment and clinical judgment, Physician discharged Allen prescribing: (1) "a high-fiber diet to let the nail pass;" (2) return to the hospital if she had any problems; and (3) follow up with her family doctor in three days. A few days later following severe vomiting, Allen went to the emergency room at Southwestern Hospital in Lawton. That same day, the hospital performed emergency surgery to remove the ingested nail from Allen's intestines. At that time, Allen was treated for a perforated and infected bowel. In addition, Allen endured two additional surgeries to treat the complications that arose from the initial surgery. Allen sued Duncan Regional Hospital and Physician for the defendants' alleged medical negligence and failure to obtain Allen's informed consent. Specifically, Allen contended that Physician failed to disclose the potential risk in letting the nail pass through her digestive system as well as the alternatives to his recommended course of treatment. Had Physician effectively discharged his duty to disclose, Allen would have "chosen the option of no treatment or a different course of treatment." The issue presented on certiorari review was whether the doctrine of informed consent required a physician to obtain the patient's consent before implementing a nonsurgical or noninvasive course of treatment. "Inherent in the question presented, is whether a physician-in addition to discussing with the patient treatment alternatives that the physician recommends-should discuss medically reasonable alternatives that the physician does not recommend." After review of the trial court record, the Oklahoma Supreme Court answered both of those questions in the affirmative. View "Allen v. Harrison" on Justia Law

In 2007, Lahoma Pierson Hall (Ms. Hall) died in the care of hospice after a seven-day stay in AHS Tulsa Regional Medical Center (Hospital). On March 20, 2009, Appellants Kenneth Pierson, and Paula Taylor, (Ms. Hall's son and granddaughter) filed a petition (Pierson I), against the Hospital stating claims on their own behalf. After amending the petition several times, Appellants filed their fourth amended petition on October 23, 2009. Appellants stated therein "[t]he plaintiffs are not pleading to have the court act on Ms. Lahoma Hall's rights for relief for actions such as medical malpractice or wrongful death." On February 24, 2010, the trial court dismissed the petition in Pierson I without prejudice for failure to state a claim. Appellants filed "Pierson II" in 2012, appealing the dismissal of their wrongful death case. In early 2013, the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the trial court's dismissal, noting that "[e]ven if the Third Amended Petition relates back to the original petition, the original petition was filed more than two years after Decedent's death. Therefore, Appellant's wrongful death action is barred by the two-year statute of limitations." The questions presented for the Oklahoma Supreme Court's review were whether the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure applied to state court actions and whether the Appellees, judges on the Court of Civil Appeals, were immune from suit. The Court answered the first question in the negative and the second in the affirmative. View "Pierson v. Joplin" on Justia Law

In 2014, Petitioner Theresa Maxwell suffered an injury to her knee while working for her Employer, Respondent Sprint PCS. She promptly notified her Employer and timely filed a CC-Form-3 with the Workers' Compensation Commission. The Employer admitted Petitioner's injury to her knee was compensable, and she had surgery to repair a tendon in her knee. Petitioner also received temporary total disability benefits from February 6, 2014, until February 24, 2014. After reaching maximum medical improvement on July 2, 2014, she returned to her pre-injury position with her employer earning her pre-injury wages. Later that year, Petitioner filed a request for a contested hearing on the issue of permanent partial disability. The ALJ concluded that Petitioner sustained 2% permanent partial disability to the body as a whole as a result of the injury to her knee and that the rate of compensation was $323.00 for a total award of $2,261.00. However, because she returned to her pre-injury position and pay, the ALJ ordered the award of benefits be deferred at a rate of $323.00 beginning July 2, 2014, for every week Petitioner worked in her pre-injury or equivalent job. Petitioner appealed the order, and the Workers' Compensation Commission sitting en banc affirmed. The Supreme Court concluded that scheduled members are exempt from the AMA Guides under the AWCA. The Court also held that the permanent partial disability deferral provision of 85A O.S. Supp. 2013 sec. 45(C)(5) was an unconstitutional violation of due process under Art. 2, section 7.51 Sections 45(C)(5)(a-e) were invalid and stricken. The deferral of permanent partial disability benefits to a subclass of injured workers under 85A O.S. Supp. 2013 sec. 46(C) was an unconstitutional special law under Art. 5, sec. 59.52. Only that portion of Section 46(C) that made the deferral provision applicable to injuries to the body as a whole or "other cases" was invalid. Any definitional provisions found in 85A O.S. Supp. 2013 section 2, as were deemed invalid to the extent they were inconsistent with the Court's opinion with regard to this matter. On remand, the Commission, through its ALJs, were mandated to take all action necessary to implement the pronouncement made by this case. View "Maxwell v. Sprint PCS" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-appellant and Oklahoma taxpayer Robert Dani claimed certain property, which had previously been handed over to the State Treasurer pursuant to the Uniform Unclaimed Property Act (UUPA), because it was presumed abandoned. This property consisted of $19.56, received in 2004 and submitted by Chevron/Texaco, as well as $150.00, received in 2013 and submitted by Office Depot, Inc. Appellant filed a claim for this property on or about January 16, 2014. His claim was approved, and a check was issued to Appellant for $169.56 on April 17, 2014. On June 22, 2015, Appellant filed suit against the State, seeking damages, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief, concerning the constitutionality and administration of the UUPA. He also alleged the UUPA was a "Ponzi scheme," again focusing on the constitutionality of the UUPA. The case was dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, and Appellant appealed. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Dani v. Miller" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-appellant and Oklahoma taxpayer Robert Dani claimed certain property, which had previously been handed over to the State Treasurer pursuant to the Uniform Unclaimed Property Act (UUPA), because it was presumed abandoned. This property consisted of $19.56, received in 2004 and submitted by Chevron/Texaco, as well as $150.00, received in 2013 and submitted by Office Depot, Inc. Appellant filed a claim for this property on or about January 16, 2014. His claim was approved, and a check was issued to Appellant for $169.56 on April 17, 2014. On June 22, 2015, Appellant filed suit against the State, seeking damages, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief, concerning the constitutionality and administration of the UUPA. He also alleged the UUPA was a "Ponzi scheme," again focusing on the constitutionality of the UUPA. The case was dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, and Appellant appealed. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Dani v. Miller" on Justia Law

Appellant-Mother, Kayla Scocos, brought a post-decree motion in trial court to relocate with the parties' child from Oklahoma to Louisiana. Appellee-Father, Andrew Scocos, filed objection and sought immediate physical custody of the child. Trial court determined the move was not made in good faith and shifted primary physical custody to Father. Mother appealed. Father argued Mother purposely withheld her intentions to move to Louisiana during the negotiations of the Joint Custody Plan and that her actions should have been considered as bad faith under a request for relocation. Regardless of whether Mother knew during negotiations of the joint custody plan that a move might be imminent, Mother contended this had no bearing on whether her reasons for relocation constitute good faith. The Supreme Court agreed. "The record is devoid of evidence that Mother's proposed relocation was designed to purposely deprive Father of visitation which could give rise to bad faith." The Supreme Court reversed and remanded this case with instructions to allow Mother's proposed relocation. View "Scocos v. Scocos" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Michael Reynolds sued the Defendants-appellees, Mary Fallin, Governor of the State of Oklahoma; Ken Miller, Treasurer of the State of Oklahoma; Preston Doerflinger, State Director of the Office of Management and Enterprise Services and various unnamed state attorneys for their alleged involvement with the three general appropriation bills. The state moved to dismiss the case which was later granted by the district court. Reynolds' principle argument on appeal was that three types of sections in the challenged general appropriation bills were substantive laws and did not constitute appropriations and were as a result, unconstitutional. Reynolds challenged the "TRANSFER" sections of the general appropriation bills that transferred money from one fund to the Special Cash Fund of the State Treasury. He also challenged sections of the three general appropriation bills that provided authorization to transfer money from one fund to another and those that provide authorization to expend money. Having found no merit as to any of Reynolds' assertions of unconstitutionality, the Oklahoma Supreme Court affirmed the district court's granting of Appellees' motion to dismiss. View "Reynolds v. Fallin" on Justia Law

The Warr Acres Nursing Center terminated plaintiff Donald Moore's employment after he called in sick with influenza. The employee sued, alleging that he had been fired in violation of public policy. The trial court granted summary judgment to the Nursing Center, and Moore appealed. After review, the Oklahoma Supreme Court held that terminating a licensed practical nurse for missing work in a nursing center while infected with influenza would violate public policy, but disputed facts existed as to the reason for termination which precluded summary judgment. The Court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded for further proceedings. View "Moore v. Warr Acres Nursing Center, LLC" on Justia Law