Case Title: Whitehead v. Tulsa Public Schools

Citation: 

Docket Number: 89856

State: oklahoma

Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

Date: 1998-07-07T00:00:00Z

Document:
Whitehead v. Tulsa Public Schools  Whitehead v. Tulsa Public Schools 1998 OK 71 968 P.2d 1211 69 OBJ 2510 Case Number: 89856 Decided: 07/07/1998 Mandate Issued: 11/20/1998 Supreme Court of Oklahoma MARTHA J. WHITEHEAD, Petitioner, v. TULSA PUBLIC SCHOOLS, OWN RISK, and THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION COURT, Respondents. [968 P.2d 1212] ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM THE WORKERS COMPENSATION COURT ¶0 Petitioner seeks review of an order of a three-judge panel of the Workers' Compensation Court. The order shows it was filed in the Workers' Compensation Court and mailed to the parties on July 16, 1997. The petition for review was delivered to the Clerk of the Appellate Courts on August 6, 1997, by the United States Postal Service in an envelope with the postmark date of August 5, 1997 affixed thereto. This Court noticed petitioner to show cause why the petition for review should not be dismissed as untimely. Respondent sought dismissal. MOTION TO DISMISS PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED; REVIEW PROCEEDING SHALL PROCEED. William J. Anton, Tulsa, Oklahoma, for petitioner. Lucia A. Lockwood, ROSENSTEIN, FIST & RINGOLD, Tulsa, Oklahoma, for respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION ALMA WILSON, Justice: ¶1 The sua sponte jurisdictional issue we consider is: Whether the date of mailing constitutes the date of filing pursuant to ¶2 This is a review proceeding from an order of a three-judge panel of the Workers' Compensation Court. The twenty-day time period for commencing review was triggered by the mailing of the order to the parties on July 16, 1997. ¶3 Commencement of an appellate proceeding in this Court by timely mailing was originally authorized in ¶4 The various statutory versions of the mailing requirements for commencement of an appeal begin with the authorization that "the filing of the petition in error may be accomplished either by delivery or by sending it ¶5 The purpose of the repealed §1004(A) and the effective §990A(B) is elimination of the travel requirement placed upon those litigants some distance away from Oklahoma City in order to commence an appellate review proceeding. The Legislature intended to provide a method to commence appellate reviews that would have evenhanded statewide application. Authorizing commencement of appeals by certified mail with return receipt requested did not achieve the evenhanded statewide application intended. This is obviously so because the Legislature continued to amend §990A(B) to achieve its purpose. The statutory changes relate to the proof required to establish the date of mailing which include the postmark affixed by the post office to the envelope, other packaging of the petition in error (petition for review), or a receipt for certified mail. KAUGER, C.J., HODGES, LAVENDER, OPALA, and WILSON, JJ., concur. SUMMERS, V.C.J., SIMMS, HARGRAVE, and WATT, JJ., dissent. FOOT