Multiple Injury Trust Fund v. Dean

• Decision Date: 09 November 2000
• Docket Number: No. 94030.,94030.
• Citation: 2001 OK CIV APP 30,24 P.3d 861
• Parties: The MULTIPLE INJURY TRUST FUND, f/k/a The Special Indemnity Fund of the State of Oklahoma, Administered by The State Insurance Fund, Petitioner/Respondent, v. Jerry D. DEAN and James H. Pilkington, individually and as representatives of a class of claimants, and The Workers' Compensation Court, Respondents/Petitioners.
• Court: United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma

24 P.3d 861

2001 OK CIV APP 30

The MULTIPLE INJURY TRUST FUND, f/k/a The Special Indemnity Fund of the State of Oklahoma, Administered by The State Insurance Fund, Petitioner/Respondent, v. Jerry D. DEAN and James H. Pilkington, individually and as representatives of a class of claimants, and The Workers' Compensation Court, Respondents/Petitioners.

No. 94030.

Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 1.

November 9, 2000.

Rehearing Denied December 8, 2000.

Certiorari Denied February 27, 2001.

John M. Rowntree, Jr., Derryberry, Quigley, Solomon & Naifeh, dor Petitioner/Respondent The Oklahoma City, OK, Multiple Injury Trust Fund.

Thomas A. Layon, Layon & Cronin, and John B. Nicks, Tulsa, OK, for Respondents/Petitioners Jerry D. Dean and James H. Pilkington.

Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 1. Opinion by KENNETH L. BUETTNER, Judge:

¶ 1 Petitioner/Respondent The Special Indemnity Fund of the State of Oklahoma, now known as The Multiple Injury Trust Fund¹ (Fund) and Respondents/ Petitioners Jerry D. Dean and James H. Pilkington, individually (Claimants), and as representatives of a class of claimants (Class), seek review of an order of the Workers' Compensation Court which ordered the Fund to pay to the Class over $25 million in interest on unpaid claims against the Fund.² Because we find that the trial court properly certified the matter as a class action, and because we find no errors of law, we sustain the order.

I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶ 2 In Claimants' action for interest on unpaid claims against the Fund they sought certification of a class of all claimants who have been awarded benefits against the Fund since January 1, 1987 and whose awards have not been paid. The Workers' Compensation Court entered its order June 22, 1995, in which it certified as a class all claimants who had been awarded benefits against the Fund since January 1, 1987 and whose claims remained unpaid. The court determined that the class exceeds 500 persons and that the class is so numerous that joinder is impracticable. The court further found questions of law and fact common to all the class members, specifically the issues of whether class members are entitled to interest on unpaid benefits and the applicable statute of limitations period. The court also determined that the claims of Claimants are typical of those of the Class. Finally, the court found that questions of law and fact common to members of the class predominate over questions affecting individual class members and that a class action is superior to other available methods for adjudication of the matter. The Fund did not seek review of that order.

¶ 3 Claimants then moved for partial summary judgment seeking an order that the applicable interest rate is 18%; that there is no applicable statute of limitations; and that amounts paid by the Fund toward the claims and interest must be applied first to the payment of interest and second to reduction of the principal. The Workers' Compensation Court entered its order January 29, 1997, in which it held that it had jurisdiction to assess interest on unpaid workers' compensation awards and that such determination is made pursuant to 85 O.S.Supp.1994 § 42. The court further found that 85 O.S. 1991 § 42 was amended in 1994 and that prior to that amendment, 12 O.S.1991 § 727 did not apply to awards against the Fund, but that after the 1994 amendment to § 42, 12 O.S.1991 § 727 did apply to determine the amount of interest owed. The court further determined that the dormancy provision in 12 O.S.1991 § 735 is not applicable to workers' compensation awards unless and until a certified copy of the award is filed in the district court. The court also ruled that ordering the Fund to pay interest on awards does not violate Oklahoma Constitution Article 10, Section 23. The court further ruled that the interest rate for awards entered against the Fund prior to November 4, 1994, and not filed in the district court, is 18%, and the interest rate on awards entered prior to November 4, 1994, but filed in the district court, is the interest rate governed by 12 O.S.1991 § 727 from the date of such filing. The court determined that the interest rate on awards entered against the Fund after November 4, 1994 is the rate provided for in 85 O.S.Supp.1994 § 42 and 12 O.S.1991 § 727. The court next determined that all payments made by the Fund would be applied to principal first and then to accumulated interest. The court then ordered a status conference to determine which class members belonged to three subclasses and also ordered the parties to inform the court when the principal amount of each class member's award was paid.

¶ 4 Claimants then sought appellate review of that order. This court ruled that the above-described order was not a "reviewable decision" and dismissed the review proceeding. See Dean v. Special Indemnity Fund, 1998 OK CIV APP 30, 956 P.2d 945. This court noted that its review of Workers' Compensation Court cases is limited to reviewable decisions, which are defined as those which "`make or deny an award' or otherwise constitute `a final determination of the rights of the parties upon a final hearing.'" Id. at 947-8, citing McCallum & Forber v. Owens, 184 Okla. 66, 85 P.2d 411 (1938). This court determined that the trial court's order "directs a status conference, continuation of the determination of the members of the class, and determination of the principal amounts for each member of the class," but lacked the attributes of an enforceable award. This court noted that it did not express an opinion on the jurisdiction or authority of the Workers' Compensation Court to entertain a class action.

¶ 5 Following dismissal of the review proceeding, the trial court ordered the parties to submit interest computations for the court's consideration. The trial court issued an order November 22, 1999, in which it awarded interest on unpaid awards to the Class. The November 22, 1999 order was vacated December 29, 1999 and a new order was issued which is the subject of the instant review proceeding.

¶ 6 In its December 29, 1999 order, the trial court noted that Rule 2 of the Workers' Compensation Court Rules³ provides that "any matter of practice or procedure not specifically dealt with either by the Workers' Compensation Act or by these Rules will be guided by practice or procedure followed in the district courts of this state." The court further noted that, while the Workers' Compensation Act and Rules do not address class actions, the civil procedure statutes applicable to the district courts do provide a statutory basis for class action proceedings. The court noted its 1995 order certifying as a class persons who had received awards of benefits from the Fund since January 1, 1987 which remain unpaid.⁴ The order further provided that assessment of interest on unpaid workers' compensation awards is covered by the Workers' Compensation Act, specifically 85 O.S.Supp.1994 § 42.

¶ 7 In its order the court further held that prior to the November 4, 1994 amendment to 85 O.S.Supp.1994 § 42, 12 O.S.1991 § 727 did not apply to workers' compensation awards unless a certified copy of the award was filed in the district court.⁵ The court opined that it would not render an advisory opinion directing the Fund as to which claims should receive priority of payment. The court further declared that the United States Rule applies to partial payments of claims against the Fund.

¶ 8 The court held that interest awards on unpaid claims against the Fund shall be computed pursuant to Cox v. Kansas City Life Insurance Co., 1999 OK 57, 983 P.2d 1025. The court noted its earlier request for submissions of proposed computations of interest based on Cox. The Class submitted two sets of calculations indicating interest due in the amounts of $21,459,594.54 and $29,875,850.83. The Fund submitted calculations showing $25,015,457.74 in interest due. The court order further noted that the parties had exchanged documents listing the names and case numbers of those in the Class.

¶ 9 The court order provided that the Fund was liable for interest on unpaid awards to Class members in the amount of $25,015,457.74, and ordered the Fund to pay to each class member the amount indicated on Addendum # 1 to the order, which sums total $25,015,457.74. The court ordered the Fund to deposit $25,015,457.74 with the Workers' Compensation Court administrator within 60 days of the order for distribution to Class members.⁶ The court reserved the issues of the means of distribution of the award and assessment of costs and attorney fees for future hearing.

II. PROPRIETY OF CLASS ACTION

¶ 10 In this review proceeding, the Fund argues first that the Workers' Compensation Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain class actions. The Fund's only argument in this regard is that the Oklahoma Pleading Code, which includes class action provisions, does not apply to actions in the Workers' Compensation Court. As a general rule this is true. However, the authority on which the Fund relies is easily distinguishable from the instant issue. Further, the Workers' Compensation Court Rules expressly allow guidance from statutes applicable to the district courts in matters not addressed by the Workers' Compensation Act or that court's rules.

¶ 11 The Fund relies on Red Rock Mental Health v. Roberts, 1997 OK 133, 940 P.2d 486, for its statement that the Workers' Compensation Court is a court of limited jurisdiction. With that statement we agree. Red Rock involved an order by the Workers' Compensation Court which required one employer to reimburse another employer for workers' compensation benefits paid to a claimant who had worked for both employers. The Oklahoma Supreme Court held that the reimbursement claim fell outside the Workers' Compensation Court's limited jurisdiction, which it noted was restricted to claims by...