Carlock v. Workers' Compensation Commission

2014 OK 29, 324 P.3d 408, 2014 WL 1532570
CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma
DecidedApril 17, 2014
DocketNos. 112607, 112613, 112653
StatusPublished
Cited by19 cases

This text of 2014 OK 29 (Carlock v. Workers' Compensation Commission) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Carlock v. Workers' Compensation Commission, 2014 OK 29, 324 P.3d 408, 2014 WL 1532570 (Okla. 2014).

Opinions

ORDER ASSUMING ORIGINAL JURISDICTION AND GRANTING RELIEF

11 Petitioners' applications to assume original jurisdiction are granted insofar as they seek declaratory relief to resolve an important public law controversy; that is, jurisdiction to review orders and awards made by the Court of Existing Claims for injuries occurring prior to February 1, 2014, pursuant to 85A O.S.Supp.2018, § 400(A). Petitioners' applications to assume original jurisdiction are denied as premature insofar as they seek relief regarding the manner in which vacancies on the Court of Existing Claims are to be filled.

12 All aspects of the adjudication of claims for injuries occurring prior to February 1, 2014, are governed by the law in effect at the time of the injury, Article 5, 54 of the Oklahoma Constitution; King Manufacturing v. Meadows, 2005 OK 78, 127 P.3d 584; 85A O.S.S8upp.2018, § 400(L), including the rights of the parties to seek review of an order or award (1) before a three-judge panel of the Court of Existing Claims, as successor to the Workers' Compensation Court, 85 0.8. 2011, 840, 85A O.S.Supp.2018, § 400(D) and Rule 60, Rules of the Workers' Compensation Court, effective January 31, 2014, or (2) before the Supreme Court, either directly from an order or award of a trial judge, or after review by a three-judge panel, 85 0.$.2011, § 340 and Rule 2 of the Rules of the Workers' Compensation Court, effective January 31, 2014. Because the Workers' Compensation Commission had no jurisdiction to review orders or awards prior to February 1, 2014, that tribunal cannot review an order or award made by the Court of Existing Claims for an injury occurring prior to February 1, 2014, pursuant to 85A O.8.Supp.2018, § 400(A), notwithstanding provisions in 85A 0.8.Supp.2018, 400(I) and (J) allowing review by the Workers' Compensation Commission.

DONE IN CONFERENCE BY ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT THIS 17th DAY OF APRIL, 2014.

18 COLBERT, C.J., REIF, V.C.J., KAUGER, WATT, WINCHESTER, EDMONDSON, TAYLOR, COMBS, and GURICH, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

CANTWELL v. FLEX-N-GATE
2023 OK 116 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 2023)
Multiple Injury Trust Fund v. Coburn
2016 OK 120 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 2016)
AIRCRAFT ACCESSORIES OF OK v. DENTON
2015 OK 31 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 2015)
CARBAJAL v. PRECISION BUILDERS, INC.
2014 OK 62 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 2014)
Carbajal v. Precision Builders, Inc.
2014 OK 62 (Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, 2014)
CARLOCK v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION
2014 OK 29 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 2014)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2014 OK 29, 324 P.3d 408, 2014 WL 1532570, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carlock-v-workers-compensation-commission-okla-2014.