Nordam v. Board of Review of the Oklahoma Employment Security Commission

Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma

Nordam v. Board of Review of the Oklahoma Employment Security Commission

1992 OK CIV APP 5, 825 P.2d 281, 63 O.B.A.J. 719, 1992 Okla. Civ. App. LEXIS 5, 1992 WL 39045

CourtCourt of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedJanuary 28, 1992

DocketNo. 75672

StatusPublished

This text of 1992 OK CIV APP 5 (Nordam v. Board of Review of the Oklahoma Employment Security Commission) 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

Nordam v. Board of Review of the Oklahoma Employment Security Commission, 1992 OK CIV APP 5, 825 P.2d 281, 63 O.B.A.J. 719, 1992 Okla. Civ. App. LEXIS 5, 1992 WL 39045 (Okla. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

REIF, Judge.

The sole issue presented is whether an order of the Board of Review of the Oklahoma Employment Security Commission remanding a claim to the Commission’s Appeal Tribunal for further evidence is a final order subject to judicial review. The District Court held that it was not and dismissed Employer Nordam’s attempt to appeal the remand order.

The statutory scheme that provides the administrative procedure for the adjudication of unemployment compensation claims expressly authorizes the Board of Review to “affirm, modify or reverse any decision of an appeal tribunal referee ... on the basis of additional evidence as it may adduce, or, at its direction, received by an appeal tribunal referee.” 40 O.S. 1981 § 2-606 (emphasis added). In view of this authority to remand claims for further evidence, no “final disposition” of the claim in the instant case could occur until the Appeal Tribunal undertook to receive such evidence and act upon it. A remand order for further evidence is clearly interlocutory in nature and “[w]hen an appeal [to district court] is lodged from some interlocutory agency action, the district court must dismiss the proceeding for want of subject matter jurisdiction.” Ricks Exploration Co. v. Oklahoma Water Resources Board, 695 P.2d 498, 501-02 (Okla.1984). The District Court’s dismissal of the purported appeal in this cause is summarily affirmed, pursuant to Civil Appellate Procedure Rule 1.201, 12 O.S.Supp. 1990, Ch. 15, App. 2, in view of the foregoing controlling authority.

BACON, C.J., and STUBBLEFIELD, J., concur.

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

REIF, Judge.

The sole issue presented is whether an order of the Board of Review of the Oklahoma Employment Security Commission remanding a claim to the Commission’s Appeal Tribunal for further evidence is a final order subject to judicial review. The District Court held that it was not and dismissed Employer Nordam’s attempt to appeal the remand order.

The statutory scheme that provides the administrative procedure for the adjudication of unemployment compensation claims expressly authorizes the Board of Review to “affirm, modify or reverse any decision of an appeal tribunal referee ... on the basis of additional evidence as it may adduce, or, at its direction, received by an appeal tribunal referee.” 40 O.S. 1981 § 2-606 (emphasis added). In view of this authority to remand claims for further evidence, no “final disposition” of the claim in the instant case could occur until the Appeal Tribunal undertook to receive such evidence and act upon it. A remand order for further evidence is clearly interlocutory in nature and “[w]hen an appeal [to district court] is lodged from some interlocutory agency action, the district court must dismiss the proceeding for want of subject matter jurisdiction.” Ricks Exploration Co. v. Oklahoma Water Resources Board, 695 P.2d 498, 501-02 (Okla.1984). The District Court’s dismissal of the purported appeal in this cause is summarily affirmed, pursuant to Civil Appellate Procedure Rule 1.201, 12 O.S.Supp. 1990, Ch. 15, App. 2, in view of the foregoing controlling authority.

BACON, C.J., and STUBBLEFIELD, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1992 OK CIV APP 5, 825 P.2d 281, 63 O.B.A.J. 719, 1992 Okla. Civ. App. LEXIS 5, 1992 WL 39045, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nordam-v-board-of-review-of-the-oklahoma-employment-security-commission-oklacivapp-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack