The Oklahoma Bar Journal May 2023

2014. The Administrative Workers’ Compensation Act (AWCA) cre ated a Workers’ Compensation Commission, an administrative agency in the executive branch, to handle claims for all injuries that occurred after the effective date of the AWCA. 30 The new law was destined to save employers money because its provisions unquestionably gave Oklahoma the lowest ben efits for injured workers in the nation. 31 Immediate challenges to the constitutionality of the AWCA were filed, especially the provi sions that gave the commission ultimate appellate authority over cases decided previously by the Workers’ Compensation Court. The Legislature’s attempt to have one agency handle all claims was shot down by a unanimous Supreme Court that held that “all aspects” of claims for injuries occurring prior to Feb. 1, 2014, must be adjudicated by the old court of record, renamed the Court of Existing Claims (CEC). As predicted, Oklahoma will have two workers’ compensation sys tems well into the future. In 2022, it was estimated by the clerk of the CEC that about 12,000 old law cases remain open. 32 Since 2014, more than 120 challenges to the AWCA have been filed. To date, 68 provi sions of the AWCA have been found to be unconstitutional, invalid or inoperable. One of the major opinions that resounded far beyond Oklahoma was the Supreme Court’s finding that “opt out,” the ability of an employer to withdraw from a statutory work ers’ compensation system and develop its own benefit plan, was unconstitutional. 33

of companies began lobbying for additional changes. Months before the 2013 legislative session, The Oklahoman, the state’s largest news paper, called for abolishing the Workers’ Compensation Court and creating an administrative system. Two large Oklahoma companies were out front: Hobby Lobby, the nationwide arts and crafts chain headquartered in Oklahoma City, and Unit Drilling, an oil and gas firm based in Tulsa. They believed the current system was broken and was a huge impediment to eco nomic growth in the state. 28 When the reform measure was introduced, I argued in an opinion piece published by The Oklahoman that the bill contained numerous unconstitutional provisions and that if the reform was enacted, Oklahoma would need two differ ent systems for handling workers’ compensation claims for many years to come. 29 Despite warnings, in the closing days of the 2013 legislative session, Senate Bill 1062 was passed and signed into law, effective Feb. 1,

DEMAND FOR DRASTIC CHANGE Employers and the Oklahoma State Chamber of Commerce called for drastic changes in the work ers’ compensation system in 2010 because of the belief that judges of the Workers’ Compensation Court made excessive awards for perma nent partial disability (PPD). The state chamber cited statistics that showed the average PPD award rose from $13,176 in 2001 to $32,452 in 2010. 25 One of the first acts of Gov. Mary Fallin when she assumed office in January 2011 was to appoint a working group to rewrite Title 85 to codify decades of appellate court decisions and strictly limit perceived abuses. The result was Senate Bill 878, which passed the state Senate 48-0 and the House of Representatives 88-8. 26 Even though Gov. Fallin predicted the new Workers’ Compensation Code would save employers $30 million a year, 27 the law was never given a reasonable chance to succeed. A small group

Employers and the Oklahoma State Chamber of Commerce called for drastic changes in the workers’ compensation system in 2010 because of the belief that judges of the Workers’ Compensation Court made excessive awards for permanent partial disability (PPD).

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.

36 | MAY 2023

THE OKLAHOMA BAR JOURNAL