Title: Dixon Property Co. v. Shaw

State: oklahoma

Issuer: Oklahoma Supreme Court

Document:

Dixon Property Co. v. Shaw  Dixon Property Co. v. Shaw 1999 OK 96 2 P.3d 330 70 OBJ 3635 Case Number: 91597 Decided: 12/07/1999 Mandate Issued: 01/07/2000 Supreme Court of Oklahoma DIXON PROPERTY COMPANY and STATE INSURANCE FUND, Petitioners, v. THOMAS SHAW and THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION COURT, Respondents. [2 P.3d 331] ON CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS, DIV. 4 ¶0 The employer brought a proceeding for review of an order by a three-judge panel of the Workers' Compensation Court which adopted the trial judge's award of permanent total disability. The Court of Civil Appeals sustained the panel's order. On certiorari granted upon the employer's petition, THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS' OPINION IS VACATED AND THE CLAIM REMANDED TO THAT COURT FOR RECONSIDERATION TO BE MADE UPON THE COMPLETE RECORD (THAT WOULD INCLUDE THE ERRONEOUSLY EXCLUDED VIDEOTAPE), WITH A VIEW TO DETERMINING IF THERE IS COMPETENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE DECISION OF THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION COURT. James J. Robertson, McGivern, Gilliard & Curthoys, Tulsa, Oklahoma for Petitioners. Susan H. Jones, Wilson Jones, P.C., Tulsa, Oklahoma for Respondent. OPALA, J. ¶1 Certiorari is limited to whether the Court of Civil Appeals erred in excluding from its consideration a videotape as part of the record on review. We answer in the affirmative and remand the case to the Court of Civil Appeals for reconsideration of the claim upon the complete record that would include the videotape as well as all the evidentiary material. I THE ANATOMY OF LITIGATION ¶2 Thomas Shaw [Shaw or claimant], a heating and air conditioning repairman for Dixon Property Company [employer], was injured on 11 July 1990 when he was at a retail store picking up parts for a job. He was hit in the head by a weedeater that fell from an overhead display. Shaw fell forward and struck his head once again. He was hospitalized for several days and did not return to work. Upon filing Form 3 on 30 July 1990 he received temporary total disability benefits for approximately six years. In 1996 Shaw requested a hearing to determine the quantum of his permanent partial disability, medical maintenance and vocational rehabilitation. He was examined by a court-appointed physician, Dr. Vosburgh, whose 16 July 1997 medical report states that he "is unemployable mainly because of the psychological status that he presents on this examination." Based on this report, Shaw pressed for a hearing to determine his permanent total disability [PTD]. Unbeknown to him, he was videotaped in August of that year on two separate occasions. Dr. Vosburgh viewed the videotape and in his 3December 1997 deposition stated that it had caused him to change his view about Shaw's employability.2 ¶3 At the 18 December 1997 PTD hearing, the videotape was offered and admitted in evidence. The trial judge, on consideration [2 P.3d 332] of the claimant's (and wife's) testimony, of the various medical reports, as well as of Dr. Vosburgh's deposition and of the videotape, ruled that Shaw was permanently and totally disabled. The three-judge panel affirmed. ¶4 The Court of Civil Appeals [COCA] sustained the panel's order without considering the videotape's probative effect on the court-appointed physician's medical report. According to its opinion, the videotape was not a part of the record on review.3 II COCA ERRED BY CONCLUDING THAT THE VIDEOTAPE WAS NOT PART OF THE RECORD ON REVIEW ¶5 On certiorari, the employer argues that the videotape was part of the record on review and that COCA erred by excluding it from the material tendered for corrective relief. We agree. A. The Videotape Had Been Offered And Admitted In Evidence at the PTD Hearing ¶6 The employer argued on appeal (to the three-judge panel) and on review (in the Court of Civil Appeals) that there is an absence of competent evidence to support the trial tribunal's PTD award. The employer's challenge to Shaw's medical evidence rests on the view that Dr. Vosburgh's testimony (given after viewing the videotape) destroyed the probative value4 of his earlier medical report. This he accomplished by conceding that the videotape changed his prior assessment of Shaw's employability status. ¶7 Only exhibits offered and admitted in evidence during the trial tribunal's proceedings may be deemed to form a part of the record to be reviewed.5 The videotape was offered sans objection and admitted as employer's exhibit one. B. The Videotape Was Part Of The Record On Review ¶8 Proceedings to review a decision of the Workers' Compensation Court are governed by Rules 1.766 and 1.104,7 Oklahoma Supreme Court Rules. The record in a proceeding for review consists of the "instruments designated . . . together with the [2 P.3d 333] original of the court reporter's transcript and exhibits incorporated therein."8 According to Rule 1.104(b) _only two dimensional exhibits no larger than 8 1/2" x 14" may be transmitted to the Supreme Court with the record, except upon order of the Court."9 The designation of record must be prepared in the manner prescribed by Rule 1.301 (Form No. 15).10 All pleadings and documents filed of record The transcripts of hearings had January 23, 1998 before the Honorable Ozella M. Willis ¶11 We hold that the employer's designation of the PTD hearing's transcript incorporated the videotape that had been offered and admitted in evidence. III SUMMARY ¶12 Where, as here, the transcript of the PTD proceeding is included in the designation of record, the exhibits offered and admitted in evidence at that hearing are a part of the record designated for review. Any exhibits omitted from the transmitted record but necessary for consideration of the issues raised must be ordered for delivery by the trial tribunal's court clerk. ¶13 Because COCA erroneously excluded the videotape from its reviewing consideration, we return this cause to the COCA panel whence it came for a complete review of the record that would include the videotape together with all the other evidentiary material in the record. ¶14 On certiorari granted upon the employer's petition, the Court of Civil Appeals' opinion is vacated and the claim remanded to that court for reconsideration to be made upon the complete record (that would include the erroneously excluded videotape), with a view to determining if there is competent evidence to support the decision of the Workers' Compensation Court. ¶15 ALL JUSTICES CONCUR. FOOT