Rudolph Hargrave

This case concerns the constitutionality of 85 O.S. § 48(A), a workers' compensation statute that generally allows claims to be filed within two years of injury but requires filing within six months if employment has terminated. The Oklahoma Supreme Court followed its prior ruling in Poneg Iron & Metal, Inc. v. Jackie Wilkinson, which held that the distinction between continued and terminated employees creates an unconstitutional special law under Art. 5, § 46 because it favors one group without a reasonable connection to curtailing retaliatory or stale claims. The Court of Civil Appeals had deemed the provision constitutional, but the Supreme Court vacated that decision and sustained the Workers' Compensation Court's order finding the statute unconstitutional.

labor & employment

This case concerned disputes over Oklahoma Corporation Commission pooling orders for oil and gas interests in a 640-acre unit in Dewey County. In 1985, the Commission had force-pooled upper formations (Unit 1) and designated an operator for an initial well. Harding & Shelton later sought to pool deeper unpooled formations (Unit 2) and to amend the 1985 order to clarify that non-participation in deeper wells would affect interests in Unit 1, designate itself as operator of subsequent wells, and allocate costs via COPAS. The Commission granted these amendments, the Court of Civil Appeals reversed, and the Oklahoma Supreme Court affirmed the Commission's order, holding that it was supported by substantial evidence, did not constitute an impermissible collateral attack on the original order, and properly allowed orderly development while protecting correlative rights of interest owners.

propertybusiness & regulatory

This case involved the estate of a truck driver killed in a multi-vehicle accident while working, after which the employer's workers' compensation insurer paid death benefits to the family pursuant to an Oklahoma Workers' Compensation Court order. The employer and insurer sought to intervene in the family's pending wrongful death lawsuit against the third-party truck owners and drivers to recover the benefits paid, relying on subrogation rights under 85 O.S. § 44(d). The trial court dismissed the intervention petition on summary judgment, a ruling affirmed by the Oklahoma Supreme Court. The court held that § 44(d) grants an independent cause of action only to the employer, not the insurer, and that the employer here had paid no benefits itself, so neither party had standing to intervene or recover. The statute's plain language was deemed unambiguous and controlling, with no rights extended to the insurer for death benefits.

labor & employmentproceduretorts & liability

The case involved a workers' compensation claim by Jackie Wilkinson against her former employer, Ponca Iron & Metal, for cumulative trauma injuries to her hands and arm from keyboard and filing duties; she was awarded temporary total disability benefits and medical care after her December 2005 termination. The employer raised a statute-of-limitations defense under the 2005 amendment to 85 O.S. § 43(A), which required post-termination injury claims to be filed within six months. The Workers' Compensation Court rejected the defense, finding the provision unconstitutional, and this was affirmed on appeal. The Oklahoma Supreme Court held that the six-month limit created an arbitrary classification between terminated and continuing employees that bore no reasonable relationship to preventing retaliatory or stale claims, violating the prohibition on special laws in Oklahoma Constitution Article 5, Section 46; it vacated the Court of Civil Appeals opinion and sustained the award.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case involved a petition for reinstatement to the Oklahoma Bar Association by Charla Reiter Montgomery, who had been removed from the rolls in 1996 for nonpayment of dues and failure to comply with continuing legal education requirements. The Supreme Court of Oklahoma, exercising de novo review, examined whether Montgomery possessed good moral character, had not engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, and maintained the necessary competency and learning in the law. The court found that testimony established her moral character, her contract negotiation work in Texas was not considered the practice of law as it was overseen by attorneys and business-oriented, and she had completed recent CLE courses. Accordingly, the court granted reinstatement upon payment of costs and outstanding dues.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved the State of Oklahoma seeking to terminate the parental rights of James and Lisa Sparks to their children N.W.S. and J.L.S. after the children were adjudicated deprived in 2006 based on allegations including an unsanitary home, inappropriate sexual activity and physical discipline by the father, alcohol abuse, domestic violence, and risk of harm. The parents stipulated to the allegations and received an individualized service plan but, following a 2008 bench trial, the trial court terminated their rights on grounds that they failed to correct the conditions leading to the adjudication, the children had spent 15 of the prior 22 months in foster care, and termination served the children's best interests. The parents appealed after their motion for new trial was denied; the Court of Civil Appeals reversed, but the Oklahoma Supreme Court vacated that decision and affirmed the trial court. The Supreme Court reasoned that the State proved by clear and convincing evidence that the parents had not remedied the issues, citing ongoing instability in housing and employment, the father's mental health commitments and erratic behavior when drinking, and the children's special needs stemming from the original home environment.

family law