Title: CONTROLS COMPONENTS, LTD. v. WEAVER

State: oklahoma

Issuer: Oklahoma Supreme Court

Document:

CONTROLS COMPONENTS, LTD. v. WEAVER  CONTROLS COMPONENTS, LTD. v. WEAVER 2013 OK 8 Case Number: 109522 Decided: 02/05/2013 THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA NOTICE: THIS OPINION HAS NOT BEEN RELEASED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE PERMANENT LAW REPORTS. UNTIL RELEASED, IT IS SUBJECT TO REVISION OR WITHDRAWAL. CONTROLS COMPONENTS, LTD. and MURPHY INDUSTRIES, LLC, Petitioners, v. SHELIA M. WEAVER and THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION COURT, Respondents. PROCEEDING TO REVIEW AN ORDER OF A THREE-JUDGE PANEL OF THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION COURT ¶0 Claimant filed a claim in the Workers' Compensation Court for injury to her left arm with psychological overlay. The trial court and three-judge panel found Claimant was permanently and totally disabled. On appeal, the Court of Civil Appeals vacated the Workers' Compensation Court's order, finding it was against the clear weight of the evidence. This Court previously granted certiorari. ON CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS, DIVISION I; COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS' OPINION IS VACATED; WORKERS' COMPENSATION COURT'S ORDER IS SUSTAINED AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS Chad R. Whitten, Cynthia J. Braly, Jenks, Oklahoma, for Petitioner, Gus Farrar, Tulsa, Oklahoma, for Respondents. OPINION WATT, J.: ¶1 Respondent Shelia M. Weaver (Claimant) seeks certiorari review of the decision of the Court of Civil Appeals' (COCA) opinion which vacated her award of permanent total disability (PTD). We granted certiorari to consider whether COCA erred when it used the "clear weight of the evidence" standard of review in Claimant's appeal. We answer in the affirmative and reverse, based on our recent holding in Williams Companies, Inc. v. Kristy Dunkelgod and The Workers' Compensation Court, 2012 OK 96, ___ P.3d ___.1 ¶2 Claimant sustained an injury which arose out of and in the course of her employment with Petitioners, Controls Components, Ltd. and Murphy Industries, LLC, (collectively, Employer) on May 13, 2005.2 Despite disputed evidence presented by Employer, the trial court found Claimant was permanently totally disabled due to her injury of reflex sympathetic dystrophy to her left arm and psychological overlay. The three judge panel affirmed. However, on appeal, COCA held "[t]he finding that Weaver is PTD is against the clear weight of the evidence. We vacate and remand for determination of PPD." COCA relied on 85 O.S. 2011 §340(D) which provides: D. The order, decision or award of the Court shall be final and conclusive upon all questions within its jurisdiction between the parties, unless, within twenty (20) days after a copy of such order, decision or award has been sent by the Administrator to the parties affected, an action is commenced in the Supreme Court, to review such order, decision or award. . . After the effective date of this act, regardless of the date of injury, the Supreme Court may modify, reverse, remand for rehearing, or set aside the order or award upon any of the following grounds: . . . 4. The order or award was against the clear weight of the evidence. [emphasis added]. ¶3 We held in Dunkelgod that the date of the injury determines the standard of review to be used on appeal. See Dunkelgod, supra, 2012 OK 96, ¶18: The standard of review applicable to a workers' compensation appeal is that which is in effect when the claim accrues. It is determined as of the date of injury and is a substantive right which remains unaffected by later-enacted legislation, despite statutory language to the contrary. See Dunlap,3 Nomac,4 supra; Okla. Const., Art. 5, §§52, 54. ¶4 Because Claimant's injury occurred on May 13, 2005, prior to the effective date of the act, August 26, 2011, COCA erred in using the "clear weight of the evidence" standard to reverse the PTD award. COCA should have reviewed the award under the "any competent evidence" standard which was in effect at the time of Claimant's injury.5 Because we find competent evidence supports the PTD award, we reverse and remand to the Workers' Compensation Court for further proceedings. ¶5 COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS' OPINION IS VACATED; WORKERS' COMPENSATION COURT'S ORDER IS SUSTAINED AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS COLBERT, C.J., REIF, V.C.J., KAUGER, WATT, WINCHESTER, EDMONDSON, COMBS, JJ. - concur TAYLOR, GURICH, JJ. - concur by reason of stare decisis FOOT