Case Title: STEWART v. MERCY HEALTH CENTER, INC.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 113237

State: oklahoma

Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

Date: 2014-11-25T00:00:00Z

Document:
STEWART v. MERCY HEALTH CENTER, INC.  STEWART v. MERCY HEALTH CENTER, INC. 2014 OK 101 Case Number: 113237 Decided: 11/25/2014 THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA NOTICE: THIS OPINION HAS NOT BEEN RELEASED FOR PUBLICATION. UNTIL RELEASED, IT IS SUBJECT TO REVISION OR WITHDRAWAL. LADONNA STEWART, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. MERCY HEALTH CENTER, INC., Defendant/Appellants. MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM: ¶1 On February 11, 2014, the plaintiff/appellee, Ladonna Stewart (Stewart/employee), filed suit against the defendant/appellants, Mercy Health Center, Inc. (Mercy/employer), in district court. Stewart alleged that Mercy had acted in bad faith in refusing to provide benefits previously ordered by the Workers' Compensation Court. Mercy filed a motion to dismiss on March 12, 2014, alleging that Stewart failed to comply with the jurisdictional requirement of obtaining a certification or order from the Workers' Compensation Court that the employer failed to provide the employee with benefits previously ordered by that tribunal.1 ¶2 The trial court refused to dismiss the cause from the bench in April with the order being filed on July 18, 2014. Mercy filed a motion for reconsideration or in the alternative for an order certifying an immediate appeal. On August 29, 2014, the trial court denied the employer's motion for reconsideration but granted the request for an order certifying an immediate interlocutory appeal. The Petition for Certiorari was filed on September 26, 2014. The Response shows a file stamp of October 7th. ¶3 In consideration of the above recounted and undisputed facts, WE DETERMINE: 1) Certiorari should be granted. 2) The sole issue presented is whether the district court has jurisdiction to proceed in the instant cause. The question is one of law subject to this Court's de novo review. Samson Resources Co. v. Newfield Exploration Mid-Continent, Inc., 2012 OK 68, ¶10, 281 P.3d 1278 ; Rogers v. Quiktrip Corp., 2010 OK 3, ¶4, 230 P.3d 853 . 3) The employee does not contend, in the response to the Petition for Certiorari, that she obtained a certification or other order complying with 85 O.S. Supp. 2014 §79 before filing the bad faith claim in district court. 4) Our jurisprudence makes it clear that failure to obtain an order of the Workers' Compensation Court certifying the award as unpaid is a jurisdictional requirement to filing a bad faith claim for failure to pay benefits in the district court. Sizemore v. Continental Casualty Co., 2006 OK 36, ¶26, 142 P.3d 36. See also, Summers v. Zurich American Ins. Co., 2009 OK 33, ¶¶12-15, 213 P.3d 565 5) The nature of this cause, presenting a pure issue of law on a jurisdictional issue which is guided by well-established jurisprudence on an undisputed fact, i.e. the lack of a certified order from the Workers' Compensation Court, makes the preparation of a record2 and the filing of briefs3 a waste of the parties' time and attorney fees and of judicial resources. 6) The trial court should dismiss the cause without prejudice, giving the employee an opportunity to correct the jurisdictional defect presently existing. ¶4 The cause is remanded to the district court for the dismissal of the cause in accordance with the directions contained herein. REVERSED AND REMANDED. COLBERT, C.J., REIF, V.C.J., KAUGER, WATT, WINCHESTER, EDMONDSON, COMBS, GURICH, JJ. - concur. TAYLOR, J. - concurs in result. FOOT