Case Title: SCRUGGS v. EDWARDS

Citation: 

Docket Number: 103443

State: oklahoma

Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

Date: 2007-02-13T00:00:00Z

Document:
SCRUGGS v. EDWARDS  SCRUGGS v. EDWARDS 2007 OK 6 154 P.3d 1257 Case Number: 103443 Decided: 02/13/2007 THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA PRESTON E. SCRUGGS, RICK C. WHEELER, ORLANDA ARRIAGA, KEVIN HESSMAN, JUAN JAIMES, JOE SUMTER, and DEWAYNE L. BALES, Petitioners, APPLICATION FOR EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF ¶0 Claimants for workers' compensation benefits challenge the order of the Honorable Ellen Edwards, Judge of the Workers' Compensation Court, deciding that two 2005 amendments to the Workers' Compensation Act should be applied to all claims regardless of the dates of injury by the claimants. One amendment defines "objective medical evidence" as "evidence which meets the criteria of Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and all U.S. Supreme Court case law applicable thereto," and the second states that compensation for permanent disability must be supported by competent medical testimony which includes application Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. The Court holds that the 2005 amendments are procedural and apply to claims pending at the time the amendments were effective. ORIGINAL JURISDICTION ASSUMED; PETITION FOR EXTRAORDINARY WRIT OF PROHIBITION DENIED Walt Brune, Northcutt, Clark, Gardner & Hron, Ponca City, Oklahoma, & Thomas D. Boettcher, Boettcher, Boettcher & Lobaugh, Tulsa, Oklahoma, for Petitioners. Andrew D. Downing, Rhodes, Hieronymus, Jones, Tucker & Gable, P.L.L.C., Tulsa, Oklahoma, for Real Party in Interest. EDMONDSON, V.C.J. ¶1 The sole issue in the case is whether U. S. Supreme Court opinions Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., ¶2 In September 2001, Petitioners filed claims with the Workers' Compensation Court alleging that they were injured in July 2001 by exposure to arsine gas while employed by Air-X-Changers (Employer). In an Extraordinary Session in 2005 the Legislature amended 17. "Objective medical evidence" means evidence which meets the criteria of Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and all U. S. Supreme Court case law applicable thereto; The amendment was effective July 1, 2005. 2005 Okla. Sess. Laws c. §§ 9, 35, (First Extraordinary Session). In that same Session the Legislature amended ¶3 In January 2006, Employer filed a motion in limine ¶4 Petitioners characterized the trial judge's order as a certified interlocutory order and requested our review. This Court may review a certified interlocutory order by a district court affecting a substantial part of the merits of the controversy. ¶5 This Court has original jurisdiction that "shall extend to a general superintending control over all inferior courts and all Agencies, Commissions and Boards created by law." Okla. Const. Art. 7 § 4. ¶6 An extraordinary writ proceeding is not the usual procedure for reviewing the correctness of an order adjudicating a motion in limine. Christian v. Gray, ¶7 In Cole v. Silverado Foods, Inc., ¶8 An exception to the general rule is that amendments relating solely to remedies and affecting only modes of procedure "are generally held to operate retroactively and apply to pending proceedings." King Mfg. v. Meadows, at ¶ 12, 127 P.3d at 589. We recently observed that "statutes relating solely to remedies and therefore affecting only modes of procedure are generally held to operate retroactively and apply to pending proceedings." Dean v. Multiple Injury Trust Fund, Legislation that is general in its terms and impacts only matters of procedure is presumed to be applicable to all actions, even those that are pending. Statutes that relate solely to remedies and hence affect only modes of procedure--i.e., enactments which do not create, enlarge, diminish, or destroy accrued or contractual rights--are generally held to operate retroactively and apply to pending proceedings (unless their operation would affect substantive rights). Cole v. Silverado Foods, Inc. Thus, the question before us, like that in Cole, is whether the amended statutes represent more than a mere procedural reform and intrude upon substantive rights, specifically, the substantive rights of those claimants challenging the application of Daubert. Cole, at ¶ 11, 78 P.3d at 547. If the challenged amendments are substantive they must be given a prospective application and they have no effect upon the workers' compensation claims before us. Id. If the amendments are procedural they apply to the claimants. ¶9 In 2005 the Legislature made Federal Rule of Evidence, Rule 702, and U.S. Supreme Court opinions construing that Rule part of workers' compensation procedure. Testimony by Experts If scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training or education may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise, if (1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data, (2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case. Fed.R.Evid. R. 702, 28 U.S.C.A. App, (West Ann. 2001), (effective Dec. 1, 2000). Federal Rule 702 was amended in 2000 in response to Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., supra. Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 702, 28 U.S.C.A. App, p. 40 (West Ann. 2001). Rule 702, as amended, is consistent with both Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., supra, and Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Patrick Carmichael et al., supra. Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 702, 28 U.S.C.A. App, p. 40-44 (West Ann. 2001). ¶10 Recent U. S. Supreme Court opinions construing or applying Rule 702 predate the effective date of the amended version. ¶11 Daubert provided a nonexhaustive list of factors for a trial judge to consider when determining the admissibility of evidence from a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training or education. The purpose of examining these factors is a determination whether the reasoning or methodology underlying the testimony is valid and whether that reasoning or methodology properly can be applied to the facts in issue. The four factors are 1. Can the expert's theory or technique be, or has it been, tested; 2. Has the expert's theory or technique been subjected to peer review and publication; 3. Is there a "known or potential rate of error ... and the existence and maintenance of standards controlling the technique's operation;" and 4. Is there widespread acceptance of the theory or technique within the relevant scientific community. Christian v. Gray, at ¶ 8, 65 P.3d at 597 - 598, citing, Daubert, ¶12 Kumho explained that in Rule 702 "scientific" was merely one type of expert testimony, and that "technical or other specialized knowledge" were also types of expert testimony in Rule 702, and were thus governed by the Daubert opinion. This language [in the Rule] makes no relevant distinction between "scientific" knowledge and "technical" or "other specialized" knowledge. Christian v. Gray, at ¶ 10, 65 P.3d at 599, quoting Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael, ¶13 Similar to Daubert, challenges to the reliability of an expert's opinion occurred in The Workers' Compensation Court prior to the 2005 amendment. Generally, evidence provided there is governed by the Oklahoma Evidence Code, ¶14 Of course, some procedures for the Workers' Compensation Court mandated by statute or rule are more specific than provisions of the Evidence Code, and the Rules of the Workers' Compensation Court recognize that the more specific procedure controls over any conflicting requirements. ¶15 Prior to the 2005 amendments, objections to evidence in the Workers' Compensation Court were often classified as either to "competency" or to "probative value." Lacy v. Schlumberger Well Service, Alternatively, an objection to an exhibit's "probative value" is used to challenge the evidence for insufficiency as legal proof of (a) medical findings with respect to the presence or absence of compensable disability, or of (b) the compensable impairment's rating. In other words, when evidence is objected to as lacking in probative value, the issue is whether it is probative of the elements it seeks to establish once admitted. Lacy, 839 P.2d at 159-160, note omitted. A Daubert objection is similar to the well-known competency objection in the Workers' Compensation Court in that both objections determine the admissibility of evidence. A Daubert objection is also similar to the well-known probative-value objection in that both involve an inquiry whether the evidence offered is probative of the elements the evidence seeks to establish. ¶16 Claimants argue that Dr. H's medical report would have been admitted in July 2001 without a Daubert-required reliability determination on the issue of causation. Specifically, and with reference to respiratory claims in July 2001, they argue that Dr. H. could have determined causation and impairment based upon the "nature of exposure" as opposed to a "chemical analysis of toxic substance." ¶17 Prior to the 2005 amendments, the 2001 AMA Guides The AMA Guides state the following: Medical or scientifically based causation requires a detailed analysis of whether the factor could have caused the condition, based upon scientific evidence and, specifically, experienced judgment as to whether the alleged factor in the existing environment did cause the permanent impairment. Determining medical causation requires a synthesis of medical judgment with scientific analysis. AMA Guides ¶18 In Zebco v. Houston, While a physician need not predicate his opinion on a chemical analysis of the toxic substances claimed to have caused the employee's respiratory impairment, the medical expert must have enough information to show that the claimant had inhaled some particles known to be harmful. Here, the physician referred to the machine's emission as merely a "spray," a "mist," and as "various respiratory particulates." From his descriptions it is apparent the physician could not have known the substance claimed to have been injurious. For all we know from the history he considered, the spray could have been composed merely of water. Although he had drawn a causal nexus between the claimant's condition and some agent he called a "respiratory irritant," we conclude that the described source of functional loss is too indefinite for a probative medical assessment of causation. Zebco v. Houston, Prior to the 2005 amendments, a physician's opinion on injury from inhalation of a harmful substance was based upon (1) information that the claimant actually inhaled a particular substance, (2) information that this substance was harmful, and (3) information showing that claimant's medical condition is consistent with inhalation of a harmful substance so that the physician could draw a "causal nexus" between the claimant's post-exposure medical condition and the inhaled substance. Zebco, 800 P.2d at 247. ¶19 In City of Nichols Hills v. Hill, ¶20 The method to show causation in both Zebco and City of Nichols Hills is consistent with Daubert. In Christian v. Gray, ¶21 In City of Nichols Hills, the employer argued that the employee's injury was caused by exposure prior to the date claimed by the employee and in circumstances other than his employment. Id. 534 P.2d at 935. The physicians for both the employee and employer examined the same medical records, medical and employment history, medical test results, etc., but they arrived at different conclusions regarding when the employee was exposed. Id. 534 P.2d at 935. The method used by physicians for both employee and employer was proper for determining causation. As we indicated in Christian, experts may possess opinions that comply with Daubert but they may disagree on the issue of causation when they use either similar or dissimilar methods for arriving at their conclusions. Christian, at n. 20, 65 P.3d at 607. The fact that physicians could have admissible opinions with varying probative value prior to Daubert has not been changed by applying Daubert to proceedings in the Workers' Compensation Court. ¶22 We conclude that both before and after the 2005 amendments a workers' compensation claim for injury resulting from inhalation of a toxic substance is based upon scientific evidence and involves an experienced judgment as to whether the alleged factor in the existing environment caused the injury. Application of Daubert and Kumho by the 2005 amendments made no substantive change in the law. The Workers' Compensation Court correctly determined that Daubert and Kumho applied to the claims of Petitioners. We assume original jurisdiction to answer the question presented, and deny the petition for prohibition. ¶23 EDMONDSON, V.C.J., LAVENDER, OPALA, KAUGER, WATT, TAYLOR, COLBERT, JJ. - Concur ¶24 WINCHESTER, C.J., HARGRAVE, J. - Dissent FOOT