Littlethunder v. State ex rel. Oklahoma State Department of Human Services

Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma

Littlethunder v. State ex rel. Oklahoma State Department of Human Services

1993 OK CIV APP 100, 854 P.2d 924, 64 O.B.A.J. 2020, 1993 Okla. Civ. App. LEXIS 73, 1993 WL 217893

CourtCourt of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedMay 18, 1993

DocketNo. 79861

StatusPublished

This text of 1993 OK CIV APP 100 (Littlethunder v. State ex rel. Oklahoma State Department of Human Services) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Littlethunder v. State ex rel. Oklahoma State Department of Human Services, 1993 OK CIV APP 100, 854 P.2d 924, 64 O.B.A.J. 2020, 1993 Okla. Civ. App. LEXIS 73, 1993 WL 217893 (Okla. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION

ADAMS, Presiding Judge:

On June 3, 1992, Tina Littlethunder (Claimant) received an order awarding her permanent partial disability benefits. The Workers’ Compensation Court also ordered a portion of the award commuted to a lump sum and paid to the Child Support Enforcement Unit of the Oklahoma Department of Human Services (DHS) to satisfy a child support lien. Claimant filed this proceeding seeking to vacate the order as it related to the child support lien.

Because this Court had questions about the jurisdiction of the Workers’ Compensation Court to enter such an order, we ordered the parties to address the applicability of Bagley v. Big “E” Industries, 776 P.2d 569 (Okl.App.1989), which considered the identical jurisdictional question. The parties filed supplemental briefs.

Claimant concedes Bagley applies, but nevertheless argues we should address other issues which she has raised. DHS simply argues the Bagley ruling on this issue was dicta and, in any event, is only persuasive authority. We are persuaded by the reasoning in Bagley. As did the Court in Bagley, we conclude the Workers’ Compensation Court, as a court of limited jurisdiction, is without authority to order that a portion of an award be commuted to a lump sum and that a direct payment be made to satisfy a child support lien. The proper forum for reaching these assets, and for determination of what, if any, exemptions apply, is the district court. Bagley v. Big “E” Industries, 776 P.2d at 571.

Because the Workers’ Compensation Court acted outside the scope of its jurisdiction, the portion of the order commuting part of Claimant's permanent partial disability award to a lump sum and ordering direct payment to DHS is vacated. This jurisdictional determination is dispositive of this appeal, and we need not address other issues raised by Claimant. The remainder [925]*925of the Workers’ Compensation Court order is not part of this review proceeding and is sustained.

VACATED IN PART AND SUSTAINED IN PART.

GARRETT and JONES, JJ., concur.

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION

ADAMS, Presiding Judge:

On June 3, 1992, Tina Littlethunder (Claimant) received an order awarding her permanent partial disability benefits. The Workers’ Compensation Court also ordered a portion of the award commuted to a lump sum and paid to the Child Support Enforcement Unit of the Oklahoma Department of Human Services (DHS) to satisfy a child support lien. Claimant filed this proceeding seeking to vacate the order as it related to the child support lien.

Because this Court had questions about the jurisdiction of the Workers’ Compensation Court to enter such an order, we ordered the parties to address the applicability of Bagley v. Big “E” Industries, 776 P.2d 569 (Okl.App.1989), which considered the identical jurisdictional question. The parties filed supplemental briefs.

Claimant concedes Bagley applies, but nevertheless argues we should address other issues which she has raised. DHS simply argues the Bagley ruling on this issue was dicta and, in any event, is only persuasive authority. We are persuaded by the reasoning in Bagley. As did the Court in Bagley, we conclude the Workers’ Compensation Court, as a court of limited jurisdiction, is without authority to order that a portion of an award be commuted to a lump sum and that a direct payment be made to satisfy a child support lien. The proper forum for reaching these assets, and for determination of what, if any, exemptions apply, is the district court. Bagley v. Big “E” Industries, 776 P.2d at 571.

Because the Workers’ Compensation Court acted outside the scope of its jurisdiction, the portion of the order commuting part of Claimant's permanent partial disability award to a lump sum and ordering direct payment to DHS is vacated. This jurisdictional determination is dispositive of this appeal, and we need not address other issues raised by Claimant. The remainder [925]*925of the Workers’ Compensation Court order is not part of this review proceeding and is sustained.

VACATED IN PART AND SUSTAINED IN PART.

GARRETT and JONES, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1993 OK CIV APP 100, 854 P.2d 924, 64 O.B.A.J. 2020, 1993 Okla. Civ. App. LEXIS 73, 1993 WL 217893, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/littlethunder-v-state-ex-rel-oklahoma-state-department-of-human-services-oklacivapp-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack