 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Campbell v. Hunt JB Transport Services2/12/2002
Modified: 03/12/2002
Mandate Issued: 03/07/2002
__ P.3d __
PROCEEDING TO REVIEW AN ORDER OF A THREE-JUDGE PANEL OF THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION COURT HONORABLE RICHARD L. BLANCHARD, TRIAL JUDGE
SUSTAINED
The original dispute between Worker, Daniel D. Campbell, and Employer, Hunt JB Transport Services, arose over Employer's failure to provide Worker with medical treatment for a work-related injury, despite numerous demands by Worker. Worker obtained his own treatment, and after filing a compensation claim, sought repayment for medical expenses incurred. The Workers' Compensation Trial Court found Worker had sustained accidental personal injuries to various parts of his body and was temporarily totally disabled, and did order Employer to reimburse Worker for medical expenses. However, the trial court ordered that further medical treatment could be provided by Employer by a Certified Workplace Medical Plan (CWMP) physician. Worker appealed that provision regarding use of a CWMP physician to a three-judge panel, claiming that the statutory provisions providing for CWMPs were unconstitutional. The three-judge panel affirmed, and Worker now appeals to this court raising the same constitutional challenge.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
There are no disputed facts in this case, as the question before this court is a pure issue of law – whether 85 O.S. Supp. 2000 §§ 14(C), 14.1, 14.2 and 14.3 are special laws prohibited by Okla. Const. Art. V, § 59. "Legal questions are reviewed de novo and an appellate court has plenary, independent, and non-deferential authority to re-examine a trial court's legal rulings." Spielmann v. Hayes, 2000 OK CIV APP 44, , 3 P.3d 711, 713. When considering questions of constitutionality, an act of the legislature will not be declared void unless it is "clearly, palpably, and plainly inconsistent with the terms of the Constitution." Rivas v. Parkland Manor, 2000 OK 68, , 12 P.3d 452, 455.
DISCUSSION OF ISSUES
Worker argues in seven propositions of error that sections 14(C) and 14.1-14.3 are special laws which violate Article V, § 59 of the Oklahoma Constitution, and are discriminatory in their application to injured workers and have other discriminatory effects. Worker also claims that the three-judge panel erred when it denied the claim of unconstitutionality of section 14(C), but did not specifically find that each challenged statute was constitutional. We reject this latter argument, because it can be inferred from the three-judge panel order that in finding section 14(C) constitutional, the other challenged sections were also found constitutional.
Article V, § 59 of the Oklahoma Constitution provides that "Laws of a general nature shall have a uniform operation throughout the State, and where a general law can be made applicable, no special law shall be enacted." The Oklahoma Supreme Court has defined a special law as one "where a part of the entire class of similarly affected persons is separated for different treatment." Kerley v. Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Co./Michelin N. Am., Inc., 2000 OK 62, , 10 P.3d 230, 233. It is clear that by enacting sections 14(C) and 14.l-14.3, the legislature has created a special class of injured workers under the Workers' Compensation Act – those who work for a company which has contracted with a CWMP. Therefore, we conclude that the laws concerning CWMPs are special laws.
Having determined that the statutes are special laws, the question then becomes whether the statutes are permissible special laws. Reynolds v. Porter, 1988 OK 88, , 760 P.2d 816, 822. Employer argues that the laws bear a rational relationship to
Page 1 2 3 Oklahoma Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|