Case Title: RED ROCK MENTAL HEALTH V. ROBERTS

Citation: 

Docket Number: 82416

State: oklahoma

Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

Date: 1996-10-15T00:00:00Z

Document:
RED ROCK MENTAL HEALTH V. ROBERTS  RED ROCK MENTAL HEALTH V. ROBERTS 1997 OK 133 940 P.2d 486 68 OBJ 3131 Case Number: 82416 Decided: 10/15/1996 Supreme Court of Oklahoma RED ROCK MENTAL HEALTH and STATE INSURANCE FUND, Petitioners, vs. KAREN ROBERTS, KELLY SERVICES and the WORKERS' COMPENSATION COURT, Respondents. ON CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS, DIV. 3 ¶0 The claimant's second employer [E2] brings a proceeding to review an order of a three-judge panel of the Workers' Compensation Court which sets aside the trial judge's dismissal of E2 as a party respondent, affirms the trial judge's award of temporary total disability against the first employer [E1] as well as the determination of the date of injury, and crafts sua sponte a reimbursement claim by E1 against E2. The Court of Appeals reversed the panel's decision. On certiorari previously granted, THE COURT OF APPEALS' OPINION IS VACATED; THE THREE-JUDGE PANEL'S VACATION OF E2'S DISMISSAL AS A PARTY RESPONDENT IS SUSTAINED; THAT PART OF THE PANEL'S ORDER WHICH INTERPOSES SUA SPONTE A REIMBURSEMENT CLAIM BY ONE EMPLOYER AGAINST ANOTHER IS VACATED; AND THE CLAIM IS REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS TO BE CONSISTENT WITH TODAY'S PRONOUNCEMENT Robert Highsaw Oklahoma City, Oklahoma For Petitioners James B. Durant Kathleen J. Adler Pierce, Couch, Hendrickson Baysinger & Green For Respondents Kelly Services Oklahoma City, Oklahoma and CNA Insurance Company Matthew J. Graves John S. Oldfield, Jr. Oldfield & Coker Oklahoma City, Oklahoma For Respondent Karen Roberts OPALA, J. [940 P.2d 488] ¶1 Two issues are tendered on certiorari: [1] Did the three-judge review panel of the Workers' Compensation [WC] Court err in vacating the dismissal of Red Rock as a party respondent? and [2] Did the panel err in crafting sua sponte a reimbursement claim for one employer-respondent against another? We answer the first question in the negative and the second in the affirmative. ¶2 I THE ANATOMY OF LITIGATION Karen Roberts [Roberts or claimant] was an employee of Kelly Services [Kelly] assigned to Red Rock Mental Health [Red Rock] as a medical record clerk when, in December 1991, she began to experience pain in her hands (wrists) and arms (elbows). She continued to work for Kelly until March 1992, when she became a full-time worker for Red Rock, in whose employment she remained until July 13, 1992. One month later, Roberts filed a compensation claim (Form 3) (and an amended form in December 1992) for statutory benefits alleged to be due her from Kelly and Red Rock for the cumulative-effect trauma to her hands and arms. The trial judge's February 16, 1993 order (a) found the claimant's symptoms first occurred in December 1991 and that she was "further exposed" on July 13, 1992; (b) declared Kelly, Red Rock and their insurance carriers "jointly and severally liable" for the claimant's medical expenses; (c) established a compensation rate based on Roberts' salary at Red Rock and (d) reserved for future determination the extent of temporary total disability [TTD] compensation and the "apportionment of liability" for permanent partial disability [PPD]. Both Kelly and Red Rock appealed from this decision. The review panel vacated the order and remanded the claim to the trial judge to "establish the date of the accident." ¶3 The trial judge's second (June 18, 1993) order, which set in motion the proceedings now under review, (a) dismissed Red Rock from the proceeding as a party respondent; (b) found Roberts sustained an accidental personal injury from cumulative trauma to her hands and arms (elbows), which began in December 1991 and extended to March 10, 1992 (while the claimant was in Kelly's employ); and (c) awarded claimant TTD solely against Kelly. Only Kelly appealed from the June 18 order to the review panel. Its appeal notice urged that (a) it should bear no liability for the claimant's post-Kelly "injurious exposure" to the same body parts and (b) the doctrine of "last injurious exposure" is applicable to this case. Kelly's brief to the panel contends that (a) the liability for claimant's loss should be apportioned between it and Red Rock and (b) if Kelly is the proper employer to respond in benefits, the compensation rates for TTD and PPD should be based solely on Roberts' salary at Kelly. ¶4 The panel's September 20, 1993 order on appeal (a) set aside Red Rock's dismissal as a party respondent, (b) affirmed the date of injury established by the trial judge's June 18 order, (c) awarded TTD against Kelly, based on Kelly's wage rate and (d) crafted sua sponte a reimbursement claim by Kelly against Red Rock. ¶5 The Court of Appeals vacated the panel's order and held that Red Rock was "liable for the injury without right of contribution" because the claimant was last exposed to trauma on July 13, 1992 while employed by Red Rock. The appellate court reasoned that in a cumulative-trauma case the date of injury for imposition of the employer's (and insurance carrier's) liability is the date of the last trauma. ¶6 II THE COURT OF APPEALS' DISPOSITION WENT BEYOND THE ISSUES PRESENTED BY RED ROCK FOR REVIEW Roberts' claim against Red Rock is not before us for settlement. The panel's September 20 order, which set aside Red Rock's dismissal from the claim and restored its previous status as a party respondent, made no adjudication of Red Rock's liability for the claimant's alleged job-related injury. ¶7 Neither do we have here for review the correctness of (a) the award of TTD against Kelly, (b) the determination of the date of injury (when claimant was in Kelly's employ), or (c) the adjudication of the compensation rate (based on salary earned at Kelly's). This is so because these dispositions became the settled law of the case ¶8 The Court of Appeals' opinion went beyond the issues presented by Red Rock. ¶9 Tendered by Red Rock's certiorari petition are two issues - whether there was error (1) in the panel's sua sponte interposition of a TTD reimbursement claim by Kelly against Red Rock and (2) the panel's reinstatement of Red Rock as a party respondent to the claim. We accordingly confine our corrective relief to the tendered questions. ¶10 III THE THREE-JUDGE PANEL'S SUA SPONTE INTERPOSITION OF A REIMBURSEMENT CLAIM IS JURISDICTIONALLY INFIRM The review panel's sua sponte interposition of the reimbursement claim - an issue not pressed by Kelly's notice of appeal - reached beyond the scope of the panel's review. That scope is limited by our case law [940 P.2d 490] and by WC court rules to issues presented in the notice of appeal. ¶11 A. The WC Court Cannot Adversely Affect Red Rock Anterior to an Adjudication of its Liability for Some Compensable Harm to the Employee; Rights Against Red Rock Depend on its Liability for the Claimed Injury No party-employer may be saddled with any obligation incident to a servant's on-the-job harm until the servant's claim for that injury has been adjudicated. ¶12 B. The WC Law Prohibits Kelly from Claiming Credit For TTD Overpayment To The Claimant Reimbursement of overpaid TTD liability is governed by the terms of 85 O.S.Supp. 1992 §41.1(A). ¶13 C. The Panel-crafted Reimbursement Claim Is Coram Non Judice ¶14 The WC court is a statutory tribunal of limited jurisdiction which has only such cognizance as is conferred upon it by law. ¶15 The jurisdiction of the WC court to make an award upon a claim not arising under the WC law cannot be conferred by agreement, waiver or conduct of the parties. ¶16 The WC court has no jurisdiction to consider a controversy between (a) two insurance companies in which an injured claimant is not interested, ¶17 The WC law creates no reimbursement claim by one employer's carrier against that of another for overpayment of TTD liability. ¶18 Although Red Rock did not raise the jurisdictional question in its brief before the Court of Appeals, jurisdictional inquiries into a trial tribunal's cognizance may be re-examined sua sponte, on appellate or [940 P.2d 492] certiorari review. ¶19 In sum, any claim that does not directly affect a claimant's right to compensation is beyond the jurisdiction of the WC court. We conclude that the review panel impermissibly crafted sua sponte a TTD overpayment claim by one employer against another. ¶20 IV THE INVOLUNTARY DISMISSAL OF RED ROCK AS A PARTY RESPONDENT IS JURISDICTIONALLY FLAWED A worker's quest to receive compensation for an on-the-job injury is a statutory public-law proceeding rather than a private dispute. ¶21 The June 18, 1993 dismissal of Red Rock without further inquiry is facially [ 940 P.2d 493 ] infirm. The trial judge's order neither adjudicated Red Rock's liability, if any it have, for the claimant's injury nor determined the period of time during which the claimant may have suffered some further harm while a Red Rock employee. The review panel was duty-bound to set aside the facially defective dismissal. We must sustain its action. On this record we express no opinion about Red Rock's liability. ¶22 The claimant's failure to appeal from Red Rock's June 18 dismissal raises an issue whether the claimant's failure to seek review of that decision amounts in law to a voluntary dismissal ¶23 V SUMMARY The three-judge panel's sua sponte interposition of a reimbursement claim by Kelly against Red Rock is facially tainted by a jurisdictional defect. The WC court lacks adjudicative authority to entertain such a reimbursement claim for overpaid TTD liability. It is this court's duty to vacate that part of the panel's order which is coram non judice. The dismissal of Red Rock, anterior to its judicial exoneration or subjection to liability, lies dehors the powers of the trial tribunal. We sustain the panel's vacation of Red Rock's dismissal from the proceedings as a party respondent. On certiorari previously granted, ¶24 THE COURT OF APPEALS' OPINION IS VACATED; THE THREE-JUDGE PANEL'S VACATION OF E2'S DISMISSAL AS A PARTY RESPONDENT IS SUSTAINED; THAT PART OF THE PANEL'S ORDER WHICH INTERPOSES SUA SPONTE A REIMBURSEMENT CLAIM BY ONE EMPLOYER AGAINST ANOTHER IS VACATED; AND THE CLAIM IS REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS TO BE CONSISTENT WITH TODAY'S PRONOUNCEMENT ¶25 WILSON, C.J., and HODGES, LAVENDER, SIMMS, and OPALA, JJ., concur; ¶26 KAUGER, V.C.J., and HARGRAVE, SUMMERS, and WATT, JJ., dissent. FOOT