Owings v. Pool Well Service

• Decision Date: 01 December 1992
• Docket Number: No. 78197,78197
• Citation: 1992 OK 159,843 P.2d 380
• Parties: Darrel Glen OWINGS, Petitioner, v. POOL WELL SERVICE, National Insurance Company, and Workers' Compensation Court, Respondents.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

Page 380

843 P.2d 380

1992 OK 159

Darrel Glen OWINGS, Petitioner, v. POOL WELL SERVICE, National Insurance Company, and Workers'

Compensation Court, Respondents.

No. 78197.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

Dec. 1, 1992.

Certiorari to the Court of Appeals, Division No. 4 Terry Pendell, trial judge.

The trial judge in the Workers' Compensation Court found that the claimant, Darrel Glen Owings (Owings/employee), was disabled in an on-the-job accident while working for the appellee, Pool Well Service (Pool/employer). A three judge review panel (panel) of the Workers' Compensation Court found that the trial court's decision was against the clear weight of the evidence. Although the Court of Appeals recognized the existence of evidence in support of the panel's decision, it reversed holding that the panel should not have reweighed the evidence. We find that a decision of the three judge review panel of the Workers' Compensation Court may not be reversed on appeal if it is supported by any competent evidence. Because the record contains competent evidence supporting the panel's decision, the order is sustained.

CERTIORARI PREVIOUSLY GRANTED; COURT OF APPEALS OPINION VACATED; ORDER OF THREE JUDGE PANEL SUSTAINED.

W. Jeffrey Dasovich, Oklahoma City, for petitioner.

Neil P. McGuffee, Oklahoma City, for respondents.

KAUGER, Justice.

The issue presented concerns the standard of review applicable on appeal from a decision of the three judge review panel (panel) of the Workers' Compensation Court. We find that a decision of the three judge review panel of the Workers' Compensation Court may not be reversed on appeal if it is supported by any competent evidence. ¹ Because the record contains competent evidence supporting the panel's decision, the order is sustained.

FACTS

The appellee, Darrel Glen Owings (Owings/employee), filed a workers' compensation claim for disability on September 18, 1990. Owings claimed he sustained a work-related injury arising out of and in the course of his employment with the appellant, Pool Well Service (Pool/employer). Owings asserted that on Thursday, September 6, 1990, he was struck by the equipment he was operating. Owings finished work on Thursday and returned on Friday and on Saturday. The following Monday, Owings reported for work but left complaining of pain. He went to the hospital that evening. Owings did not return to work for Pool after seeking medical attention.

At trial on April 25, 1991, Owings and his wife testified and submitted medical reports in support of the compensation claim. Two of Owings co-workers contradicted Owings' testimony. The co-workers testified that, on the day of the accident, Owings was not operating the equipment he claims to have been struck by and was not in the area where he said the injury occurred. On direct examination, Owings testified that he had no other injuries. However, under cross examination, Owings admitted that he had sustained a subsequent work related injury for which he was receiving compensation from another employer.

The trial court found that Owings had suffered a work-related injury and awarded compensation. Pool sought relief from the three judge review panel of the Workers' Compensation Court. ² The panel vacated

the trial court's decision finding that it was against the clear weight of the evidence. In denying Owings compensation, the panel stated that Owings' testimony lacked credibility and that he was not injured in the course of his employment with Pool. Although the Court of Appeals recognized the existence of evidence in support of the panel's decision, ³ it reversed holding that the panel should not have re-weighed the evidence. We granted certiorari on July 9, 1992, to determine the standard of review applicable on appeal from a decision of the three judge review panel of the Workers' Compensation Court.

A DECISION OF THE THREE JUDGE REVIEW PANEL OF THE WORKERS'

COMPENSATION COURT MAY NOT BE REVERSED ON APPEAL IF IT IS

SUPPORTED BY ANY COMPETENT EVIDENCE. BECAUSE THE RECORD

CONTAINS COMPETENT EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE PANEL'S DECISION,

THE ORDER IS SUSTAINED.

Pool asserts that the evidence presented to the Workers' Compensation Court may not be weighed on appeal, and that orders issued by the Compensation Court must be sustained if supported by any competent evidence. Owings argues that the decision of the three judge review panel was not based on competent evidence.

Claims filed under the Workers' Compensation Act, 85 O.S.1991 § 1 et seq., are subject to fact finding within the limited jurisdiction of the Workers' Compensation Court. The trial court serves as a trier of fact and renders a decision. Unsatisfied parties may seek relief from an en banc panel of the Workers' Compensation Court or on direct appeal to this tribunal. ⁴ The review panel, made up of three judges from the Workers' Compensation Court, examines the factual findings of the trial judge. The panel may alter the trial court's decision if it finds that the decision is against the clear weight of the evidence. ⁵ Review of the panel's findings may be sought in this Court. ⁶ When a panel's decision is appealed, it will be sustained if supported by any competent evidence. ⁷

Appellate review of a panel's decision is confined to the search for any competent evidence. ⁸ Here, Owings' co-workers testified that, on the day of the alleged injury, he was not operating the equipment he claims to have been struck by and that

he was not working in the area where Owings says he was hurt. This testimony is relevant and material to a claim of injury within the scope of employment. It is competent to support the panel's decision. Additionally, Owings gave conflicting testimony concerning a subsequent work-related injury. The existence of other evidence supporting Owings' claim is immaterial. Review is confined to a search for any competent evidence which could support the order of the review panel. ⁹ Because the panel's decision is supported by competent evidence, it must be sustained.

CONCLUSION

On appeal from a three judge panel of the Workers' Compensation Court, the appellate court is limited to canvassing the record to determine if there is any competent evidence to support the panel's decision. ¹⁰ A decision of the three judge review panel of the Workers' Compensation Court may not be reversed on appeal if it is supported by any competent evidence. ¹¹ Inconsistent testimony by Owings and conflicting testimony of co-workers was both material and relevant to the holding of the review panel. The order of the three judge panel is sustained.

CERTIORARI PREVIOUSLY GRANTED; COURT OF APPEALS OPINION VACATED; ORDER OF THE THREE JUDGE PANEL SUSTAINED.

OPALA, C.J., and LAVENDER, SIMMS, HARGRAVE, SUMMERS and WATT, JJ., concur.

HODGES, V.C.J., and ALMA WILSON, J., dissent.

ALMA WILSON, Justice, dissenting:

The result reached by the majority fulfills the prediction expressed in my dissent in Parks v. Norman Municipal Hospital, 684 P.2d 548 (Okla.1984). The inevitable consequence of the Parks decision is the one reached by the majority in its opinion, that is, if the issue is one of evidence, the decision of the three judge panel will be rubber stamped by the appellate court if the panel uses the words "against the clear weight of the evidence" in the panel's Order on Appeal. Even if a cursory examination of the record reveals that the clear weight of the evidence supported the trial court's decision Parks continues to bind the arms of the appellate judiciary.

In the case at bar, the majority opinion vacates the opinion of the Court of Appeals and sustains the order of the three judge panel, which found "that the claimant was not a credible witness" and denied compensation to the claimant. The Court of Appeals opinion would have vacated the decision of the panel and reinstated the award of compensation given by the trial judge. The majority opinion holds that a decision of the three judge panel may not be reversed on appeal if it is supported by any competent evidence. This standard of appellate review was fashioned in Parks. ¹

I. THE PROBLEM WITH PARKS.

The standard of review announced in Parks is built upon the legal conclusion that 85 O.S.1981, § 3.6 controls the re-examination process by the trial panel while § 26 controls the standard of review in the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals. Parks, 684 P.2d at 552. To reach these conclusions, Parks finds the language of § 26 "unequivocally and unmistakenly limits appellate reviewing power to questions of law." Parks, 684 P.2d at 552. The language that opinion finds unequivocal is the last sentence of § 26, which provides: "The decision of the Court shall be final as to all questions of fact, and except as provided in Section 3.6 of this title, as to all questions of law." Parks, 684 P.2d at 551.

The reasoning that the legislature has placed an unequivocal limitation on appellate review allowing only questions of law to be reviewed is flawed. The flaw becomes apparent when the last sentence of § 26 is read in the entire context of subsection B of § 26. ² The subject of subsection B is joint petitions. It requires the workers' compensation court to approve the joint petition only when the terms of the petition conform to the workers' compensation statutes. It authorizes the court to investigate the allegations in the joint petition; to order a hearing upon the application of either party; to receive evidence from either party; and to determine the claim based upon the court's conclusion of fact and ruling of law. Subsection B declares that the decision shall be final on all questions of fact, but expressly allows questions of law to be appealed as provided in § 3.6.

The plain words of the last sentence of § 26(B) are that questions of law may be appealed as provided by § 3.6. Section 3.6 authorizes appeal to a panel of the workers' compensation judges and/or to the Supreme Court, even though Parks concluded...