The Oklahoma Bar Journal May 2023

The first workers’ compensation laws in Oklahoma were unclear and confusing, only covering those in what the Legislature considered “hazardous employment.” Pictured above, workers posed with their wagons full of cotton in front of the Dulaney Cotton Gin in Cornish, Oklahoma. Courtesy Oklahoma Historical Society.

Supreme Court said the worker was not engaged in “hazardous employment” because the injury did not fit within the “engineering works” category in the statute. 9 The 1919 Legislature limited the jurisdiction of the Industrial Commission to injuries sustained in two dozen occupations, such as cotton gins, factories, logging, streetcars and oil refineries. 10 Still, the Supreme Court held that a single employer could have both hazardous and nonhazardous employees under the same roof. The Legislature occasionally tried to refine its definition of “hazardous employment,” but

It was confusing at best. It was obvious from the statute that the Legislature intended to give the Industrial Commission latitude to determine what constituted “hazardous employment.” But the statute’s list of hazardous occupa tions allowed the Supreme Court to limit the jurisdiction of the commission and thus send claims to the district court. An early example was the Supreme Court’s denial of benefits to an employee of the Kingfisher County Highway Department who was injured in an automobile accident while driving to assist the county engineer with surveying a state highway. The

that the replacement of tort reme dies must provide “significant” benefits. That term has been debated for a century.

THE HAZARDOUS EXPOSURE LIMITATION

Unfortunately for both employ ers and injured workers, the first Oklahoma workers’ compensation law did not protect a majority of workers in the state. The law cov ered only workers in “hazardous employment.” There was no clear definition of the term, resulting in hundreds of legal challenges and legislative changes for the next half-century.

Statements or opinions expressed in the Oklahoma Bar Journal are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Oklahoma Bar Association, its officers, Board of Governors, Board of Editors or staff.

MAY 2023 | 33

THE OKLAHOMA BAR JOURNAL