Title: Farley v. City of Claremore
Citation: 2020 OK 30
Docket Number: 
State: Oklahoma
Issuer: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Date: May 5, 2020

Farley v. City of Claremore Annotate this Case Justia Opinion Summary Plaintiff Shelli Farley, a surviving spouse of a former City of Claremore fireman, successfully obtained a death benefits award in the Workers' Compensation Commission. She then brought a District Court action for damages alleging the death of her spouse was caused by negligence and an intentional tort committed by her spouse's employer who was a local government entity. She argued her action was also for the benefit of her surviving child, as well as the surviving parents and brother of the deceased. The Oklahoma Supreme Court concluded after review of the trial court record, that a tort action for damages suffered by a surviving spouse, surviving child, and parents of a deceased adult child did not survive for the purpose of a 12 O.S. 1053 wrongful death action when: (1) The wrongful death action arises from an injury compensable by an exclusive workers' compensation remedy and the tort action is brought against the employer of the deceased; and (2) the employer can claim sovereign immunity. In this case, the wrongful death injury was adjudicated and compensated by a successful workers' compensation claim after the death of the decedent. This successful adjudication demonstrated the decedent's injury was exclusively before the Commission and not cognizable as a District Court claim at the time of decedent's death. The parents' action for loss of companionship damages was extinguished at the time of decedent's death and did not survive. And the City was immune from suit because the tort claim against it was for liability for an injury properly compensated by a claim before the Workers' Compensation Commission. The brother of the deceased did not possess a wrongful death § 1053 action for loss of consortium. Furthermore, the Court concluded plaintiff lacked standing to seek injunctive relief. Dismissal of this case was affirmed. Read more Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Oklahoma Supreme Court? Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More › You already receive new opinion summaries from Oklahoma Supreme Court. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here . FARLEY v. CITY OF CLAREMORE 2020 OK 30 Case Number: 115400 Decided: 05/05/2020 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. SHELLI FARLEY, individually and as surviving spouse of JASON FARLEY, deceased, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. CITY OF CLAREMORE, OKLAHOMA, Defendant/Appellee. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF ROGERS COUNTY ¶0 Surviving spouse of a former fireman for the City of Claremore filed a petition in the District Court of Rogers County against the City of Claremore. Surviving spouse sought damages for wrongful death and an injunction against the City of Claremore. The City of Claremore filed a motion to dismiss seeking dismissal of the action with prejudice. The Honorable Sheila A. Condren, District Judge, granted the motion to dismiss and the surviving spouse appealed. The appeal was retained for disposition by the Oklahoma Supreme Court. We hold: (1) A tort action seeking damages for a surviving spouse, surviving child, and parents of a deceased adult child does not survive in a 12 O.S. § 1053 wrongful death action when: (a) Statutes provide an exclusive worker's compensation remedy for survivors which is substituted for a wrongful death action; and (b) The decedent's employer possesses governmental tort claim sovereign immunity barring a tort action for damages at the time of decedent's death; (2) The brother of the deceased did not possess a section 1053 claim for loss of companionship; and (3) Plaintiff lacked standing to seek injunctive relief. DISTRICT COURT ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITH PREJUDICE AFFIRMED Steven R. Hickman, Frasier, Frasier & Hickman, L.L.P., Tulsa, Oklahoma, for Plaintiff/Appellant. Andrew W. Lester, Courtney D. Powell, Spencer Fane L.L.P., Edmond, Oklahoma, for Defendant/Appellee. EDMONDSON, J. ¶1 Plaintiff, a surviving spouse, successfully obtained a death benefits award in the Workers' Compensation Commission. She then brought a District Court action for damages alleging the death of her spouse was caused by negligence and an intentional tort committed by her spouse's employer who is a local government entity. She argued her action was also for the benefit of her surviving child, as well as the surviving parents and brother of the deceased. We conclude: A tort action for damages suffered by a surviving spouse, surviving child, and parents of a deceased adult child does not survive for the purpose of a 12 O.S. § 1053 wrongful death action when: (a) The wrongful death action arises from an injury compensable by an exclusive workers' compensation remedy and the tort action is brought against the employer of the deceased; and (b) The employer possesses governmental tort claim sovereign immunity. The wrongful death injury was adjudicated and compensated by a successful workers' compensation claim after the death of the decedent. This successful adjudication demonstrates the decedent's injury was exclusively before the Commission and not cognizable as a District Court claim at the time of decedent's death. The parents' action for loss of companionship damages was extinguished at the time of decedent's death and did not survive. We hold the local government entity possessed sovereign immunity because the governmental tort claim against the City was for liability for an injury properly compensated by a claim before the Workers' Compensation Commission. The brother of the deceased did not possess a wrongful death § 1053 action for loss of consortium. We also conclude plaintiff lacked standing to seek injunctive relief. We affirm the District Court's dismissal of the petition with prejudice. I. Trial Court Proceedings and Issues Raised ¶2 Plaintiff, Shelli Farley, is the surviving spouse of Jason Farley, a former fireman for the City of Claremore who died while responding to an emergency request for assistance during a flash flood in Claremore, Oklahoma. Shelli Farley (Farley) brought an action in the District Court of Rogers County against the City of Claremore (the City) both in an individual capacity and as representative of Jason's estate and alleged an entitlement to damages flowing from Jason's death based upon theories of negligence and intentional tort.1 In addition to seeking wrongful death damages pursuant to Oklahoma's Government Tort Claims Act (OGTCA), she sought an injunction against the City to require the City to comply with an alleged national standard for operation and training of the City's personnel who perform emergency swift water rescues. Her petition expressly states she has been damaged by medical and funeral expenses for Jason.2 ¶3 The City filed a special entry of appearance with a motion to dismiss. Attached to the motion to dismiss is an order of the Workers' Compensation Commission awarding death benefits to Shelli ten months prior to her commencing her District Court action. The appearance and motion relied on 12 O.S. §2005.2(A)(entry of appearance does not waive § 2012 defenses); 12 O.S. §2012(B)(1)(lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter) and 12 O.S. § 2012(B)(6)(failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted). The City argued the following in its motion: (1) Workers' Compensation remedy was the sole remedy for plaintiff,3 and plaintiff had previously and successfully pursued that remedy and was seeking a double recovery; (2) Plaintiff's claims are barred by 51 O.S. § 155(14) of the OGTCA,4 and (3) Plaintiff's claims are barred by 51 O.S. § 155(6) of the OGTCA;5 (4) Plaintiff's claims are barred by 11 O.S. § 29-108;6 (5) Plaintiff's claims are barred by 51 O.S. § 155(5) of the OGTCA;7 (6) Plaintiff's claims are barred by 51 O.S. § 155(4) of the OGTCA;8 and (7) Plaintiff lacks standing to seek injunctive relief, and plaintiff's request is beyond the scope of an injunction because an order requiring municipal adoption of a specific standard for water rescues is an attempt to make the City create a "legislative decision." The City's motion has an attached exhibit showing a prior workers' compensation award of death benefits to Shelli and Jason Farley's minor child. ¶4 Shelli Farley, as surviving spouse and mother of the deceased's minor child, sought and obtained workers' compensation death benefits for the death of Jason. The amount awarded to Farley was a lump sum ($100,000.00) plus $571.55 per week (backdated and continuing).9 The amount awarded to the surviving minor child was a lump sum ($25,000.00) to be paid into an interest bearing account with Farley as guardian until the child is 18 years of age, and a weekly benefit of $122.48.10 ¶5 The Commission's Order states funeral expenses were already paid pursuant to 85A O.S. § 47 at the time of the workers' compensation award.11 The award is dated ten months prior to filing Farley's District Court petition action also seeking funeral expenses. Costs were awarded against the City in the Order. The City did not contest Farley seeking workers' compensation benefits. The City stipulated to the facts relating to Jason's employment, his wages, his death as compensable by the Commission, the City's insurance coverage, and the identities of Shelli as surviving spouse and their child as a surviving minor child. No one appeared for either the City or insurance carrier at the hearing before the Commission. The Commission heard testimony from Farley prior to entering the award. The order of the Workers' Compensation Commission is dated July 31, 2015, approximately ten months before May 2016 when Farley brought her action in the District Court of Rogers County against the City. ¶6 Farley responded to the City's motion to dismiss with "Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice and Supporting Brief." She did not contest or otherwise challenge the fact she had previously sought and obtained a workers' compensation award for the death of Jason. Farley argued the following in her response: (1) Workers' Compensation remedy is not the exclusive remedy because the parents and brother of the deceased, Jason, do not have a remedy with the Workers' Compensation Commission remedy. Further, plaintiff's petition alleges grief and loss suffered by the brother and parents of the deceased spouse.(2) Plaintiff's claim is not barred by the OGTCA because the City has an obligation to maintain the water drainage system for the City. Section 155(5) of the OGTCA does not bar the claim because the City's actions were ministerial and/or operation as opposed to discretionary.(3) Plaintiff has standing to seek an injunction because she is a resident of the City and has a personal stake in the outcome of the firefighters being correctly trained for a swift water rescue. ¶7 The City filed a Reply to plaintiff's response which included the following arguments: 1. City of Claremore was immune from liability because Farley had pursued and obtained a worker's compensation remedy.2. Shelli Farley had obtained a workers' compensation award and the OGTCA confers immunity when the loss is covered by workers' compensation. [citing 51 O.S. § 155(14).3. The parents and brother of the deceased, Jason, do not have a wrongful death remedy.4. The City is immune pursuant to § 155(4) and § 155(6).5. Farley lacks standing to obtain an injunction. ¶8 The trial court granted the motion to dismiss with prejudice. The District Court's order includes the following. After reviewing the filings and hearing the arguments of counsel, the Court finds that when all of the facts alleged are taken as true and inference appropriate drawn, there is no set of facts which would entitle plaintiff to the relief she seeks. The District Court's order did not state which of the several grounds raised by the City were sufficient for dismissing plaintiff's action. ¶9 Farley appealed the trial court's order and this Court retained the appeal. Her petition in error has three assignments of error on appeal. 1. She states the District Court granted defendant's motion because the deceased was "a person covered by the Workers' Compensation Act." However, the District Court erred because the Petition alleged death as a result of an "intentional tort" and the trial court failed to address plaintiff's constitutional claims relating to how 85A O.S. § 5 defines an intentional tort. 2. The City is not exempt from liability pursuant to the OGTCA § 155(5) because the City failed to maintain a drainage system it had previously installed. 3. "The District Court [erred] in granting dismissal, per the submissions of the parties." ¶10 Farley's appeal is prosecuted pursuant to Rule 1.36 which provides for the trial court filings to serve as the appellate briefs and the assignments of error on appeal are those listed in an appellant's petition in error.12 Farley's arguments in her trial court filings which serve as her Rule 1.36 appellate briefs are as follows. (1) Workers' Compensation remedy is not the exclusive remedy because the parents and brother of the deceased, Jason, do not have a remedy with the Workers' Compensation Commission remedy; (2) Farley's claim is not barred by the OGTCA because the City has an obligation to maintain the water drainage system for the City, and § 155(5) of the OGTCA does not bar her claim because the City's actions were ministerial as opposed to discretionary; and (3) Farley has standing to seek an injunction because she is a resident of the City and has a personal stake in the outcome of the firefighters being correctly trained for a swift water rescue. II. Appellate Review ¶11 The City filed a motion to dismiss which included alleged jurisdictional defenses based upon two arguments: On plaintiff's claim for damages, an argument based on the Governmental Tort Claims Act combined with a final order awarding compensation benefits on allegedly the same cause of action pled in District Court; On plaintiff's claim for injunctive relief, a jurisdictional bar based upon plaintiff's alleged lack of standing. The City's motion to dismiss argued Farley had already received compensation from the Worker's Compensation Commission and the Commission had exclusive jurisdiction over Farley's claims. The City argued judicial notice may be taken of the proceedings before the Workers' Compensation Commission and the public record before the Commission.13 A copy of the award to Farley and her child was attached to the City's motion to dismiss. The City argued the motion to dismiss should not be converted to summary judgment. ¶12 A motion to dismiss based upon a jurisdictional ground and 12 O.S. § 2012(B)(1) is not converted to a motion for summary judgment by reliance upon facts not appearing on the face of a plaintiff's petition.14 However, a jurisdictional fact not appearing on the face of the petition and used in support of a 12 O.S. § 2012(B)(6) failure-to-state-a claim defense will convert the motion to one for summary judgment. The City's motion raised both § 2012(B)(1) and § 2012(B)(6). The City's motion relied upon the fact of Farley's successful workers' compensation award to show a governmental tort immunity as well as a collateral estoppel (no double recovery) defense to Farley's action for damages based upon an alleged intentional tort. ¶13 In federal court, judicial notice of fact may occur when the fact is not subject to reasonable dispute and it "can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned."15 The Oklahoma statute has similar language.16 Some federal courts have stated a court may take judicial notice of an indisputably accurate fact17 on the world wide web (or internet),18 and public records and government documents available from reliable sources on the internet, such as websites run by governmental agencies may be used for the purpose of judicial notice.19 Some federal courts have also concluded public agency actions, factfinding, and decisions may be appropriate for judicial notice.20 A motion to dismiss in federal court based upon Fed.R.Civ.P.12(b)(6) tests the sufficiency of a plaintiff's federal complaint, and the court examines the face of the complaint as well as (1) documents incorporated by reference, (2) documents referenced in the complaint central to plaintiff's claim when the parties do not dispute the documents' authenticity, and (3) matters of which a court may take judicial notice.21 A Rule 12(b)(6) motion may raise a res judicata affirmative defense using facts known by judicial notice without requiring the defense to be raised by answer or converting the motion to summary judgment.22 ¶14 Concerning the City's estoppel defense based upon a single-recovery rule, sometimes the question whether prior litigation creates a preclusion to additional litigation may be a question of law.23 A question of law may be decided in the trial court on a motion to dismiss as well as a motion for summary judgment. In Wilson v. State Election Bd.,24 we explained the standard of review with the following: A determination of whether the preclusion doctrine applies is solely a question of law if "(1) the facts are undisputed, (2) the preclusion question can be answered solely by reviewing the judgment put forward as the bar, or (3) the preclusion determination can be made solely by inspection of the record of the proceeding(s) culminating in the judgment put forward as the bar." Feightner v. Bank of Okla., 2003 OK 20, ¶ 3, 65 P.3d 624 , 627 (citations omitted). Here the application of the preclusion doctrine is a question of law because the determination can be made solely by de novo review of the record on appeal and consideration of this Court's opinion in Wilson I. Id. Wilson, 2012 OK 2, ¶ 5, 270 P.3d at 157. Farley did not challenge the fact of a prior workers' compensation recovery for death benefits, and we may review the City's § 2012(b)(6) estoppel argument and its particular application herein using the appellate standard for reviewing a § 2012 (B)(6) motion as we now explain. ¶15 The City also stated it was challenging the subject matter jurisdiction of the trial court by a § 2012(B)(1) motion, and the City relied on (1) the Oklahoma Governmental Tort Claim Act (OGTCA, 51 O.S.2011 § 151-171), and (2) 11 O.S.2011 § 29-108 25 which provides a statutory immunity for tort liability in certain circumstances.26 The City's argument rests upon certain implied conclusions of law: (1) Sovereign tort immunity is equated with a § 2012(B)(1) subject matter jurisdiction defense, and (2) Provisions of the OGTCA are a collection of mandatory statutes with strict-compliance requirements for the purpose of subject matter jurisdiction; and (3) A plaintiff's OGTCA cause of action, or claim upon which relief may be granted, contains elements which must be pled to show the presence of subject matter jurisdiction; and (4) An OGTCA defendant may by motion to dismiss invoke extra-pleading facts relating to proper application of the OGTCA without converting the motion to one for summary judgment. ¶16 Generally, sovereign tort immunity includes attributes which are consistent and inconsistent with principles of subject matter jurisdiction.27 There is no doubt some language in the OGTCA refers to jurisdictional requirements.28 We have recently observed jurisdictional requirements are often expressed as mandatory or strict-compliance duties, and some mandatory statutory obligations may have attributes authorizing a substantial rather than mandatory compliance.29 Our Court of Civil Appeals has reviewed a plaintiff's failure to comply with the OGTCA in the context of a § 2012(B)(6) motion.30 The City asserts governmental tort sovereign immunity as a jurisdictional defense without (1) legal authority discussing attributes of immunity relating to jurisdictional issues, or (2) legal authority or discussion on the nature of facts in support the City's jurisdiction/immunity argument, e.g., jurisdictional facts, quasi jurisdictional facts, and facts necessary to plaintiff's cause of action and whether any of these are jurisdictional.31 ¶17 We need not analyze sovereign immunity and its relation to subject matter jurisdiction issues raised by the City. An order granting a motion to dismiss raising a jurisdictional issue is reviewed de novo and allegations of a petition are deemed as true32 similar to review of a § 2012(B)(6) motion to dismiss.33 We note federal courts have allowed facts appropriately subject to judicial notice to be considered for certain purposes when adjudicating a similar Fed. R. Civ. Pro., Rule 12(b)(6) motion without converting the motion to one for summary judgment.34 We also note the City's motion used the exhibit of the Commission's order for the purpose of showing a final order of the Workers' Compensation Commission, and at the hearing on the motion the City argued that plaintiff "had been compensated under that [Workers' Compensation] act."35 Farley did not challenge in either the trial court or this Court by assigned error the City's use of the Commission's order.36 The Commission's order is before us as part of a record on appeal and it was before the trial judge when the City's motion was decided. ¶18 A determination of jurisdiction based upon the legal effect of a document recognized as accurate by all parties presents a question of law.37 Further, this Court has explained judicial notice should have been taken of a plaintiff's unopposed status as personal representative of a decedent's estate when that status was revealed by a document accompanying a defendant's response brief on summary judgment.38 The document attached to the City's motion identifies Farley's status relating to a successful workers' compensation proceeding for death benefits and the award to Farley and her minor child. Farley did not dispute the statements in the document or the procedure used to present it to the District Court. We review the District Court's order de novo to determine if an error of law occurred. ¶19 A long-recognized rule is that when a judgment is general in its terms and does not disclose which of several grounds it is based upon, it will not be reversed on appeal if any one of the grounds raised in the trial court is a valid basis for the judgment.39 Exceptions to this general rule do not apply in the present controversy.40 This rule that only one legally valid basis is needed for a judgment or judicial decision applies to appellate review of a trial court's order sustaining a motion to dismiss as well as the correctness of a decision on an appellate motion to dismiss filed in the Oklahoma Supreme Court.41 Consistent with this principle is our explanation that "a legally correct nisi prius judgment must be affirmed although it was anchored to a theory different from that on which it comes to be tested on appellate review" when the different theory is adequately supported by the record.42 ¶20 In an appeal controlled by Okla. Sup. Ct. R. 1.36 the briefs in the appellate court are those which were considered by the trial court when it issued the order reviewed in the 1.36 appeal. City of Claremore's combined motion to dismiss and brief (as well as Reply) in the trial court are this party's appellate briefs and each of its briefed defenses is raised in this appeal.43 An appellee may raise a legal issue in support of the correctness of the trial court's judgment and the relief actually granted when the issue is supported by the record on appeal.44 Clearly, an issue is before us on appeal when an appellee argues on appeal the specific issues and associated facts previously submitted to the trial court to consider and those issues and facts are subsequently preserved in the appellate record.45 We need not review all issues raised by appellee, merely those which are dispositive of Farley's assignments of error in the appeal. III. Plaintiff's District Court Tort Action For Personal Injury Damages Subsequent To Successful Workers' Compensation Award For The Same Personal Injury III (A). Single-Injury Rule and Workers' Compensation ¶21 The City's argument combines (1) the fact that Farley successfully obtained a workers' compensation award against the City for death benefits with (2) our 1979 opinion in Pryse Monument Co. v. District Court,46 and (3) our 2003 opinion in Gladstone v. Bartlesville Independent School Dist. No. 30 (I-30).47 This argument raises both res judicata (Pryse) and statutory sovereign immunity issues (Gladstone). ¶22 Our 2013 opinion in Holley v. Ace American Ins. Co.,48 explained Pryse involved a "prior incarnation" of the workers' compensation statutes, those statutes allowed an injured employee in certain circumstances to elect between pursuing an action in tort in the District Court or a workers' compensation remedy, and a plaintiff's choice of one remedy would bar subsequent use of other remedy.49Waiver by election will preclude the claimant from vexing the employer with a second suit. Once a remedy is chosen and then pursued to conclusion, the point of no return is reached although there has been no satisfaction, much less vindication, of the right. Three essential elements, all present here, must coincide to make preclusion through waiver by prior election of remedies applicable: (a) two or more remedies must be in existence (b) the available remedies must be inconsistent (c) choice of one remedy and its pursuit to conclusion must be made with knowledge of alternatives that are available.... Holley, 313 P.3d at 923-924, 2013 OK 88 at ¶ 8, quoting Pryse, 595 P.2d at 437. Election of remedies doctrine is based upon the actual existence or availability of two or more remedies.50 However, the City's argument is not that Farley had two remedies to elect from as discussed in Pryse. Instead, Farley was (1) required to use her sole and only remedy in workers' compensation law, and (2) when she pursued this remedy and obtained a compensation award then the award had the effect of barring a subsequent District Court action as discussed in Pryse. Our opinions and the City's argument recognize the underlying theory in our cases involving successive workers' compensation and District Court proceedings based upon the same injury is analyzing whether an estoppel has been created as opposed to applying the common-law doctrine of election of remedies.51 ¶23 The particular application of this estoppel argument raised by the City herein is: The single-injury-single-recovery rule which creates an estoppel shows a "single injury" at the time of Jason's Farley's death. This is so because the injury was legally cognizable before the Workers' Compensation Commission at the time of death, and a cognizable claim before the Commission excludes a negligence and intentional tort District Court action. The cognizable claim before the Commission shows that a governmental tort claim sovereign immunity and a workers' compensation exclusive remedy statutes must have applied to Jason Farley's claim at the time of his death. This application is then used to show the District Court negligence and intentional tort claim was extinguished at the time of Jason Farley's death and wrongful death action did not survive. This extinguishment is shown to also extinguish the wrongful death claims/damages of the wrongful death statutory beneficiaries. ¶24 In Dyke v. Saint Francis Hosp. Inc.,52 the Court stated the rule in Pryse "in essence erects a res judicata bar," and precludes a party using a workers' compensation remedy and a District Court remedy to recover for the same on-the-job injury.53 Res judicata is identified with claim preclusion and ordinarily applied when a claim in a second suit is the same as the claim adjudicated on the merits and to finality in the first proceeding.54 Although a workers' compensation claim has been historically described with attributes55 which are different from the elements of negligence and intentional tort claims in a District Court, we have treated a final adjudicated worker's compensation claim awarding benefits as creating a bar to a District Court tort proceeding against an employer for the same injury because the findings necessary to award workers' compensation have a preclusive effect similar to issue preclusion. ¶25 In Howard v. Duncan,56 an injured employee obtained a worker's compensation award and then brought a tort suit in a District Court for the same injury. She alleged her District Court action was proper because the State Industrial Commission lacked jurisdiction to make the award she received. We noted the general rules relating to collateral attacks.57 We observed the State Industrial Commission held a hearing on the worker's claim, received evidence, and a finding of fact was made sustaining the worker's right to an award. We observed the Commission's jurisdiction was exclusive.58 We directed the District Court to dismiss plaintiff's action. Howard v. Duncan, is consistent with our explanation that a final workers' compensation order awarding benefits is not subject to a collateral attack before the Commission,59 as well as the rule stating that doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel apply to a final administrative determination which is adjudicatory in nature.60 ¶26 The defendant in Howard relied upon a workers' compensation statute making plaintiff's remedy exclusive before the Commission, and the City of Claremore relies upon exclusivity language in 85A O.S. § 5.61 This exclusivity of the workers' compensation remedy means the employee relinquishes a common-law right to bring an action in District Court against his or her employer in exchange for the employer securing statutory compensation for employees with injuries.62 ¶27 The Workers' Compensation Commission possesses the authority to adjudicate questions of law and fact related to application of workers' compensation law to a particular party before the Commission.63 The Commission's application of workers' compensation law to the facts before it includes making specific findings when hearing a claim.64 The preclusive force of a workers' compensation award in a subsequent District Court action rests on a finding of an accidental injury by the Worker's Compensation Commission relating to the same injury raised by theories of negligence or an intentional tort in District Court. A finding whether an injury arose out of and in the course of employment as a result of an accident has been construed as a finding and issue of fact when the parties do not agree on facts, and an issue of law when the parties do agree on the facts.65 On the other hand, when a workers' compensation order determined an injury did not arise out of and in the course of employment and there was no workers' compensation coverage or remedy, this finding did not bar a subsequent District Court action for damages on the same injury.66 Preclusion doctrines will apply to bar relitigation when a party in a subsequent District Court tort action alleges a former Workers' Compensation Commission's findings on its record were factually incorrect and the Commission lacked jurisdiction.67 ¶28 The parties agree that on May 23, 2015, Captain Jason Farley, a fireman for the City of Claremore, died while responding to an emergency request for assistance to help people trapped in a flash flood. The law in effect on that date determines whether the Workers' Compensation Commission possessed jurisdiction to award of benefits,68 and this date is also used to determine the law in effect at the time of a decedent's death in a wrongful death action.69 A compensable workers' compensation injury must be an "accident" and "unintended."70 Historically, an "accident" for workers' compensation law was required for liability and generally excluded injury caused by a person's intentional tort.71 As Wells v. Oklahoma Roofing & Sheet Metal, L.L.C.,72 explains, a remedy for an injury caused by an intentional tort by an employer lies in a District Court, but an "accidental" harm or injury arising from negligence is provided for by the workers' compensation statutes. ¶29 On May 23, 2015, 85A O.S.Supp.2014 § 5, was in effect and stated that the rights granted by the Administrative Worker's Compensation Act were "exclusive of all other rights and remedies of the employee, his legal representative, dependents, next of kin, or anyone else claiming rights to recovery on behalf of the employee against the employer...." On that date 85A O.S.Supp.2014 § 3 was in effect and stated the Administrative Worker's Compensation Act applied to "claims for injuries and death based on accidents."73 A compensable injury by the Commission included damage or harm to an employee's body as a result of an accident arising out of the course and scope of employment.74 ¶30 The Commission made express findings Farley was an employee of the City, died as a consequence of a compensable work-related incident, the Commission had jurisdiction to award workers' compensation benefits, and both the surviving spouse and surviving minor child were entitled to death benefits pursuant to 85A O.S. § 47. Generally, the accidental nature of an injury compensable by a workers' compensation remedy excludes the possibility that this same injury is simultaneously an "intentional tort"75 injury caused by an employer. Generally, res judicata and collateral estoppel apply to jurisdictional questions,76 and to a final and express adjudication of an issue properly before an administrative body that is subsequently raised between the same parties or their privies.77 The preclusive effect of a final adjudication includes a final determination before the Workers' Compensation Commission.78 This final adjudication includes a determination an injury is compensable because it resulted from an accident. Claim preclusion, collateral estoppel, applies when the claim in the second suit is the same as in the first suit.79 The Commission determined Farley died from an accidental injury covered by Workers' Compensation. An adjudication of the accidental nature of an employee's death precludes a subsequent District Court action collaterally attacking the accidental nature of the injury and alleging it arose from a intentional tort outside the jurisdictional scope of an award by the Workers' Compensation Commission. This award shows that Jason Farley had a workers' compensation claim for an accidental injury at the time of his death, and this claim was subject to the exclusive remedy provided by the workers' compensation statutes. III (B). Farley's Response to the City's Use of an Estoppel Argument ¶31 Farley maintains she may bring a District Court action for damages alleging an employer's negligence and intentional tort causing the death of an employee although a workers' compensation death benefits award was issued prior to the District Court action. ¶32 Addressing her arguments, we explain: (1) The preclusive effect of a workers' compensation award on a subsequent District Court action is based upon a definition for a cause of action tied to identification of the injury or harm suffered; (2) The wrongful death statutes (12 O.S. §§ 1051, 1053) have authorized damages based upon the decedent's claim not being extinguished at death; (3) The death-benefits remedy in workers' compensation is a substitute for the wrongful death action, and (4) A cognizable workers' compensation death-benefits award of compensation available at the time of a decedent's death bars a subsequent tort action for the same injury against the employee's employer. ¶33 Historically, the scope of a workers' compensation remedy was based on an employee's accidental injury regardless of the employer's degree of negligence, or even without the employer's negligence; but the accidental nature of the injury meant that an intentional injury caused by an employer was not within the scope of workers' compensation remedies.80 There have been exceptions where an employer could be exposed to potential liability in a workers' compensation or a District Court tort proceeding. For example, when an employer acted in more than one capacity, a status or capacity in addition to employer status.81 However, this dual-capacity doctrine was abrogated with respect to employers by the recently enacted Administrative Workers' Compensation Act in effect prior to Jason Farley's death.82 Further, the formerly effective dual-capacity doctrine did not negate an estoppel, either claim or issue preclusion, when raised as a bar to a double recovery for the same injury.83 ¶34 The City of Claremore was found in the workers' compensation proceeding to be the employer of Jason Farley. The District Court petition names the City of Claremore as the sole defendant. The petition alleges negligence and states the City failed to maintain a storm drain at a specific location, previously removed a safety grate over a specific drain pipe, and failed to give Jason Farley and other fireman proper training for swift water rescues. These allegations invoke the status of the City as an employer as well as the City's non-employer role in maintaining safe drainage structures for the benefit of the public. This latter issue raises whether the City has sovereign immunity in this context. ¶35 An employer has a duty to provide a safe workplace for employees.84 We have explained in the context of the dual-capacity doctrine that when the employer's negligence causing a lack of safety is so inextricably bound to the employer's status and duty as an employer, then the employee's remedy for an injury flowing from employer's negligence is workers' compensation. 85 One reason for this is the general rule that an injury from an employer's negligent failure to provide a safe working environment is addressed by the workers' compensation remedy.86 Historically, an employee gave up the right to bring a negligence action against his or her employer in exchange for the statutory no-fault worker's compensation remedy.87 In the present context, the City's argument is that Jason Farley, as an employee, had no survivable negligence or tort claim action which could serve as a basis for a wrongful death action after his death. ¶36 We have applied the concept of "accidental" to an employee's injury consistent with the injury being caused by an employer's negligent conduct, and noted a District Court action based on an employer's negligence was barred by the exclusivity of a workers' compensation remedy.88 Further, we recently noted a District Court's grant of summary judgment to an employer in a wrongful death action was proper when the employer had been previously ordered to pay death benefits by the Workers' Compensation Court of Existing Claims.89 ¶37 Farley attempts to escape this estoppel and prohibition on a double recovery by characterizing her two theories of recovery as (a) negligence, and (b) intentional (substantial-certainty) tort authorized by a wrongful death statute, 12 O.S. § 1053. She also alleges a separate cause of action seeking injunctive relief not barred by a previous monetary award against the employer. Farley's argument relating to negligence and intentional tort indicate she has a particular section 1053 wrongful-death-action status that makes the workers' compensation remedy inadequate and allows her to bring a tort action for wrongful-death damages. ¶38 Farley's wrongful-death claims for damages based upon (1) injury to her deceased husband, and (2) injuries to her, Jason's surviving child, and surviving parents are based on the statutes authorizing the survival of a tort action in the form of wrongful-death actions, 12 O.S § 1051 and § 1053. An injury to decedent's person, such as pain and suffering, is based on 12 O.S. § 1051.90 An injury resulting from the death of the person and inuring to the benefit of the surviving spouse, surviving children, surviving parents, if any, or the decedent's next of kin is pursuant to 12 O.S. § 1053.91 Both 1051 and 1053 are based upon the same alleged wrongful death with the damages recognized in the two statutes being different, although an estoppel may be created if a plaintiff tries to litigate the 1051 and 1053 actions as separate actions.92 ¶39 As we now explain, the difference between 1051 and 1053 does not help Farley's argument because (1) the parents and brother have no survivable 1053 action, and (2) the workers' compensation death-benefits remedy for a surviving, spouse, children, and dependents is designed as a substitute for a wrongful death action based on 12 O.S. §§ 1051 and 1053. ¶40 Plaintiff argues Jason Farley's parents and brother have no remedy in workers' compensation, and the District Court action for wrongful death was proper as to them as non-named parties represented by Farley in the District Court. They assert they possess a legally cognizable interest in the litigation and the estate of the deceased. ¶41 The 1971 version of 12 O.S. § 1053 contained no language for "loss of consortium,"93 and damages sought by parents of a deceased were limited to "pecuniary loss" they suffered.94 Traditionally, the wrongful-death damages were limited to pecuniary benefits specified by statute; and there was no recovery permitted a parent for injury to feelings, mental anguish, loss of society and companionship or destruction of the parent-child relationship.95 Section 1053 was amended in 1978 to include loss of consortium by the surviving spouse.96 A 1979 amendment97 to section 1053 provided for "loss of consortium of the surviving spouse," as well as "loss of companionship and grief of the children and parents of the deceased."98 Our 1983 opinion in Clark v. Jones,99 recognized these changes when we explained surviving siblings of the deceased could not bring an action for loss of consortium. We explained any right of survivors to bring an action and the nature of damages allowed are based upon the wrongful death statutes.100 The statutory language recognizing the surviving spouse's loss of consortium and the loss of companionship suffered by children and parents has remained unchanged and is the same in its current codification at 12 O.S.2011 § 1053. No express language appears in § 1053 providing for loss of companionship or loss of consortium by a sibling. Jason Farley's brother has no section 1053 action for his for loss of companionship or loss of consortium. ¶42 In 1983, Gaither By and Through Chalfin v. City of Tulsa,101 we explained wrongful-death actions were unknown at common law, and any right of action surviving the decedent existed solely because of statutory enactment.102 When the Legislature enacted in a wrongful death statute new damages which had not been available for the wrongful death action, then a new "substantive right" was created. In our 1977 opinion, Thomas v. Cumberland,103 we explained a parent had been limited by 12 O.S. § 1053 to the pecuniary value of the services provided by a child, then recently enacted 12 O.S.Supp.1975 § 1055104 had created a new "substantive right" in a wrongful death action for a parent to recover for loss of companionship and love of a minor child and for destruction of the parent-child relationship.105 We repeated this concept in our 1996 opinion in Roach v. Jimmy D. Enterprises, Ltd.,106 where we explained sections 1053 and 1055 should be read together so that damages based upon the wrongful death of a minor child authorized in section 1055 would include, when appropriate, punitive damages authorized by section 1053.107 We further explained these rights to specific damages were substantive rights and the law at the time of injury was applicable.108 Our opinions in Clark (1983), Gaither (1983), Thomas (1977), and Roach (1996) demonstrate that when the Legislature amended the wrongful death statutes it created substantive rights possessed by a parent for damages based upon the wrongful death of the parent's child. ¶43 Our 1994 opinion in Ouellette v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,109 involved a legal action by parents based upon the death of their child. Their child had a surviving spouse and surviving children. We explained the wrongful death statutes provided a remedy for a surviving spouse and surviving children, and if neither of these (spouse and surviving children) existed, then those who possessed status as statutory next of kin could bring the wrongful death action. . . . because wrongful death is not actionable absent a statute, the parents' quest for the damages they seek . . . must accord with the legislative wrongful-death recovery regime . . . A wrongful-death claim may be pressed only by persons authorized to bring it . . . if the decedent leave a surviving spouse and a child or children, the parents may not take as next of kin, . . they take as next of kin if the decedent leave neither issue nor a surviving spouse . . . . Ouellette, 1994 OK 79, 918 P.2d at 1366-1367, material omitted. In Ouellette we explained a wrongful-death claim may be brought by persons authorized by statute, e.g., the personal representative of the decedent and if none has been appointed, then by the widow, or where there is no widow, by the decedent's next of kin, with recovery inuring to the exclusive benefit of the surviving spouse and children, if any, or next of kin. We observed this language addressed the parties eligible to sue in a wrongful death action, and was intended to address an administrative concern, the multiplicity of suits.110 Farley does not address the effect of Ouellette on the status of Jason Farley's parents or brother and the nature of their interest, if any, in the estate of Jason as defined by 84 O.S. § 213 and in the context of a surviving spouse and a surviving child.111 ¶44 The wrongful death cause of action pursuant to 12 O.S. § 1053 created or authorized a survivable cause of action with damages recovered by a surviving parent.112 Section 1053 defines the action as authorized when certain conditions are met, including (1) a wrongful death and (2) if the deceased had a judicially cognizable claim to maintain if living. A. When the death of one is caused by the wrongful act or omission of another, the personal representative of the former may maintain an action therefor against the latter, or his or her personal representative if he or she is also deceased, if the former might have maintained an action, had he or she lived, against the latter, or his or her representative, for an injury for the same act or omission. The action must be commenced within two (2) years. 12 O.S.2011 § 1053(A) (emphasis added). Our 1992 opinion in Riley v. Brown and Root, Inc.,113 expressly stated the section 1053 action is derivative in the sense that survivors' rights are based upon the rights of the decedent, and we relied on our opinions in Haws v. Luethje,114 and Hill v. Graham,115 when we stated the following: But Section 1053 provides now, as it has always provided, for an action of wrongful death only if the decedent might have maintained an action if he or she had lived. The rights of the survivors are derivative. Haws, 503 P.2d at 874. The survivors have no more and no less rights than did the decedent. "... [A]ny right of action thus granted by the statute is predicated solely upon the right of action which was personal to the deceased had he lived." Hill v. Graham, 424 P.2d 35 , 37--38 (Okla.1967). Riley, 836 P.2d at 1301 (emphasis in original). Our 2014 opinion in Boler v. Security Health Care, L.L.C.,116 explained the action authorized by section 1053 was not "wholly derivative" in the sense the cause of action must not have been extinguished before the death of the decedent.117 The statutory language in § 1053(A) still continues in force and effect and a parent's action for wrongful death damages arising from loss of companionship is derived from a legal right which was possessed by decedent and which was legally cognizable, e.g., not extinguished.118 Further, because wrongful-death actions were unknown at common law and any right of action surviving the decedent exists solely because of statutory enactment,119 we must construe section 1053 in harmony with the Workers' Compensation statutes and the sovereign immunity statutes to obtain a result consistent with the plain meaning of all of the statutes and the intent plainly expressed by the Legislature.120 ¶45 Jason Farley's theoretical negligence and intentional tort theories could not have been maintained in a District Court action by Jason Farley; i.e., the theories could not be a basis for stating a claim upon which relief may be granted. This is so because his common-law tort rights were extinguished by operation of law. They were extinguished by: (1) A statute which operated upon Jason Farley's circumstances to make his tort claim cognizable solely as a substituted workers' compensation claim before the Workers' Compensation Commission, and (2) A sovereign immunity statute which barred his District Court action; and (3) A statute which removed the dual-capacity doctrine as an available remedy for him against his employer. Jason Farley had no common-law tort claim when he died and no loss of consortium damages were cognizable at that time.121 The single-recovery-for-single-injury rule shows that Jason Farley's potential or theoretical tort claim for damages at the time of his death was based upon the same injury or cause of action used for a workers' compensation claim. The successful workers' compensation proceeding occurred after his death but in combination with the relevant statutes does show he possessed at the time of his death an exclusive worker's compensation remedy against an entity possessing a governmental tort claim sovereign immunity as explained herein. ¶46 Historically, the right to workers' compensation death benefits was statutorily created to be consistent with 12 O.S. § 1053 and 84 O.S. § 213,122 and the workers' compensation death benefits were treated as an exclusive statutory remedy substituted for the statutory wrongful death action guaranteed by an Oklahoma constitutional provision and approved by a vote of the People in Oklahoma.123 For example, in Gaasch, Estate of Gaasch v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company,124 plaintiff's petition stated a "wrongful death"claim against an insurer, and further characterized the cause of action as both an action on a contract and a "bad faith" tort claim where an insurer failed to provide medical care as ordered by the Oklahoma Workers' Compensation Court. We noted the exclusive available remedy in the workers' compensation statutes for the particular wrongful conduct giving rise to the alleged injury, and we affirmed the District Court's summary judgment for the insurer.125 When the workers' compensation statutes provide an exclusive remedy for an alleged wrongful conduct, this is the remedy which must be pursued. ¶47 Farley also argues Parret v. UNICCO Serv. Co.,126 and Wells v. Oklahoma Roofing & Sheet Metal, L.L.C.,127 save her action from dismissal. Farley's argument against dismissal relies upon characterizing the employer's conduct as negligent or intentional and thereby demonstrating a cause of action in District Court which is distinct from a worker's compensation remedy. Wells explained (1) the common law divides personal injuries between accidental versus willful or intended, (2) the workers' compensation statutes provide a remedy for accidental injuries but a remedy for willful or intended injuries lies in a District Court, and (3) an intentional injury includes those injuries which an employer possessed knowledge that an injury was substantially certain to result.128 Wells did not recognize multiple causes of action for the same wrongful death or injury. We did not approve the concept that an injured employee possessed one cause of action with a workers' compensation remedy, three actions based upon each degree of negligence,129 and one action based upon an intentional tort. Similarly, Parret's explanation of the substantially-certain intentional tort did not authorize a subsequent District Court action against an employer after a claimant's successful workers' compensation proceeding. Characterizing a party's degree of negligence or intentional conduct is generally understood as an assessment on a continuum of culpability or tort liability130 and not creating different causes of action for the same injury. ¶48 Generally, a cause of action is defined by a "transaction or occurrence" and multiple theories of liability do not turn a single cause of action into multiple causes of action. In summary, no matter how many theories of liability appear to arise from a single harm, they all arise from the same or single transaction or occurrence.131 Wells determined an injured employee could bring an action in District Court against an employer based upon the employer's intentional conduct as shown by the substantial-certainty standard. Wells did not authorize double or multiple recovery for the same injury. ¶49 Oklahoma has used for certain purposes the "single or indivisible injury" rule for identifying a cause of action. For example, the rule has been used in the context of multiple tortfeasors.132 More on point, our 1913 opinion in Shawnee Gas & Electric Co. v. Motesenbocker133 stated with respect to the cause of action for wrongful death provided by statute: The statute contemplated only one action. No case has been cited or found in which it was held that the cause of action for wrongful death could be divided or damages for the same death could be sued for in separate actions by the various individuals who had sustained damages thereby. The rule is the other way. Shawnee Gas, 138 P. at 792. This language was cited by our Court of Appeals in 1992 explaining why the mother and father of their deceased child could not bring separate wrongful death actions,134 and again in 1994 in a Court of Civil Appeals' opinion this Court approved for precedential publication.135 We have also explained that the "same death" could not be used by multiple individuals in separately filed actions by those who had allegedly sustained damages. For example, we explained a wrongful death action is purely statutory, can only be brought by a person expressly authorized by statute, and "there is only one cause of action."136 Historically, a workers' compensation remedy applied to a type of injury, one arising out of and in the course of employment, and in our case with the injury of death authorizing statutory damages to a surviving spouse and dependent children. Further, wrongful death statutes also applied to a particular type of injury, i.e., death, and provided damages recoverable by the statutory beneficiaries. Viewing the workers' compensation death-benefits remedy as a "same claim" substitute for the wrongful death cause of action is reasonable and supported by our precedent. ¶50 We have held in certain instances when formal barriers prevent full presentation of remedies or theories of relief in one action, a party is not precluded from bringing another claim in a subsequent action which arose out of the same set of facts as the first action.137 However, when a successful workers' compensation adjudicated claim is followed by a District Court action seeking damages against an employer for the same injury, our opinions have been closer, although not identical, to the Restatement of the Law (Second), Judgments, § 24, and its prohibition on splitting a claim. One comment to § 24 includes the following language: The rule stated in this Section as to splitting a claim is applicable although the first action is brought in a court which has no jurisdiction to give a judgment for more than a designated amount. When the plaintiff brings an action in such a court and recovers judgment for the maximum amount which the court can award, he is precluded from thereafter maintaining an action for the balance of his claim. . . It is assumed here that a court was available to the plaintiff in the same system of courts--say a court of general jurisdiction in the same state--where he could have sued for the entire amount. Restatement (Second) of Judgments, § 24, cmt. g. (material omitted). Farley's suit is an assertion she may obtain a full and complete recovery against the City by an action in an Oklahoma District Court for an intentional tort which is not within the remedial jurisdiction of the Workers' Compensation Commission. Farley made a choice to prosecute her claim before the Workers' Compensation Commission as a workers' compensation claim. Again, a basic concept from Pryse and its progeny is that a successfully obtained workers' compensation remedy erects a bar or estoppel preventing a District Court tort recovery for the same injury against the same employer.138 Farley's success before the Commission shows Jason Farley possessed a legally cognizable workers' compensation claim as an exclusive remedy, and Farley's District Court petition is not saved from dismissal by characterizing her District Court action as alleging negligence or intentional conduct torts which survived Jason Farley's death in a wrongful death action. ¶51 In summary: When an alleged wrongful death is used to obtain a death benefits award by the Workers' Compensation Commission against an employer and the surviving spouse and minor child of the deceased receive an award; then this wrongful death may not be a basis for a statutory wrongful death action in a District Court against the same employer for that same injury alleging negligence or intentional conduct by the employer causing the death of the deceased. Further, because the decedent had no cognizable tort claim against his employer at the time of his death, no tort claim survived for the basis of loss of companionship or loss of consortium damages pursuant to 12 O.S. § 1053. III (C). Sovereign Immunity and Plaintiff's Governmental Tort Claim ¶52 Farley argues her petition should not be dismissed because it alleges an action pursuant to the Oklahoma Governmental Tort Claim Act (OGTCA, 51 O.S.2011 § 151-171) against the City of Claremore. Farley alleged the City failed to perform reasonable maintenance to a drain pipe and drainage safety grate. Farley invoked the City's status as both an employer and the dual-capacity doctrine with the City acting as a governmental entity for her OGTCA claim. She relied on Teeter v. City of Edmond,139 where we distinguished between a city's discretionary acts where no tort liability was attached and ministerial or operational acts which were not exempt from tort liability.140 ¶53 The City countered it was immune pursuant to the OGTCA. The OGTCA is the exclusive remedy to recover against a governmental entity in tort.141 Governmental immunity of a subdivision of the State is waived only to the extent and in the manner provided in the OGTCA.142 Section 155(14) of the OGTCA states: "The state or a political subdivision shall not be liable if a loss or claim results from: . . . (14) Any loss to any person covered by any workers' compensation act or any employer's liability act;...." 51 O.S.Supp.2013 § 155(14). ¶54 In Smith v. State ex rel. Dept. of Transportation,143 we explained a 1988 amendment to the Oklahoma Governmental Tort Claims Act extended the State's immunity to claims covered by a workers' compensation act, and that such immunity did not violate the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution.144 We re-examined section 155(14) in Gladstone v. Bartlesville Independent School Dist. No. 30 (I-30),145 where a wrongful death claim was brought and challenged the constitutionality of section 155 (14). We noted "the state and political subdivisions are not liable for injuries to tort claimants who stand covered by the workers' compensation regime," and we concluded the immunity did not violate due process or equal protection principles.146 The surviving spouse had received statutory workers' compensation benefits and this Court affirmed the District Court's summary judgment to the employer of the deceased, although the Court noted our Court of Civil Appeals had previously concluded in a different case that success with an alternative remedy was not required for imposition of the section 155(14) immunity.147 ¶55 Farley's argument asks us to construe ministerial or operational acts of the City in maintaining the drainage pipe and drainage gate as an exception to cases such as Gladstone. In Moran v. Del City we explained the "maintenance" duties by a governmental entity used as a basis of tort liability cannot be negated by an incorrect and broad OGTCA exemption from liability not intended to address cases where those duties arise.148 Farley asks us to construe an OGTCA exemption from sovereign immunity (maintenance of drainage structures by the City) as applying to a tort claim against an employer/governmental entity. Generally, a governmental entity is immune unless the Legislature has expressly waived the immunity.149 We must construe the OGTCA as part of a consistent whole.150 Considering the demise of the dual capacity doctrine, it is reasonable to construe § 155(14) consistent with that demise instead of construing it as suggested by Farley. We rejected Farley's argument in Gladstone. ¶56 We hold: the City of Claremore has § 155(14) immunity for a statutory wrongful death action in District Court brought by a surviving spouse against the City as the former employer of the deceased when the same wrongful death injury was the basis of an award for death benefits made by the Workers' Compensation Commission to the surviving spouse and surviving minor child. ¶57 In summary: (1) The issue whether Farley possessed a workers' compensation remedy has been answered by her success before the Workers' Compensation Commission with its findings of record. (2) This success is based upon a finding the injury was accidental and within the jurisdiction of the Workers' Compensation Commission, as opposed to an intentional-tort injury outside the jurisdiction of the Commission. (3) The dual-capacity doctrine was abrogated with respect to employers by the recently enacted Administrative Workers' Compensation Act. (4) The express immunity in § 155(14) includes any OGTCA claim subject to a workers' compensation remedy. (5) Any negligence or intentional tort claim brought by Farley was barred by OGTCA and the exclusive workers' compensation remedy at the time of Jason Farley's death. (6) The parents and brother of Jason Farley have no 12 O.S. § 1053 wrongful death claim against Jason Farley's former employer, the City of Claremore. The District Court committed no legal error when it dismissed Farley's claims for damages. IV. Injunctive Relief and Standing ¶58 Farley's petition states her former husband and other firefighters rescued a woman and six small children from water caused by a flash flood. She alleges the fire fighters did not have a "formal training program supporting swift water rescue" at the time of Jason Farley's death in May 2015. She alleges Jason Farley drowned due to inadequate training. She alleges the area where Jason Farley died is known to flood. ¶59 Farley alleged the City's Fire Department "claims to follow NFPA standards." She states she is seeking a temporary and permanent injunction to compel the City "to comply with the training standards set forth in NFPA [National Fire Protection Association] 1670" Standards on Operation and Training for Technical Search and Rescue Incidents. Farley alleges the City did not institute a rescue policy for swift water rescues until June 2015, held its first class for a swift water rescue in July 2015, and then an addendum regarding unseen hazards was issued in October 2015. She alleges that by January 2016 the fire fighters had not received any swift water rescue training "beyond an introductory lecture." ¶60 The City's motion challenged Farley's standing and personal stake in the training of firefighters, and argued an injunction requiring to adopt a training standard was infringing on a legislative decision by the City and improper for an injunction. Farley responded she possessed a personal stake because of her husband's death. She also stated an injunction "would ensure that all citizens of Claremore, including plaintiff herself, can be safely rescued in the event of another flash flood or similar such water event," and her personal residence "is within only a few blocks of a Zone A flood zone." Further, "The only way to ensure that individuals such as plaintiff will be safe during future flooding events, which are sure to occur given the City's drainage system and geographic location, is to require that the City's fire fighters are properly trained in swift water rescue." ¶61 A mandatory injunction is an extraordinary remedial process and seeks relief in the form of commanding the performance of a positive act, such as requiring a public official to enforce law by a plaintiff's request for an injunction in the nature of mandamus.151 Farley does not seek an injunction to compel the City to adopt a standard. Farley alleges the City and its officials have failed to enforce a standard it adopted after the death of her husband. ¶62 Federal court standing has been explained with the following: "'The plaintiff must have (1) suffered an injury in fact, (2) that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct of the defendant, and (3) that is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.'"152 When a plaintiff seeks an injunction against an official policy, plaintiff must "credibly allege" a realistic threat to the plaintiff from the policy.153 The alleged injury must be actual or imminent and fairly traceable to the challenged action.154 The concept of imminence cannot be stretched beyond its purpose, which is to ensure that the alleged injury is not too speculative for the purpose of standing, e.g., the injury is certainly impending.155 The High Court has "repeatedly reiterated" that "certainly impending" is necessary to show an "injury in fact" and allegations of "possible future injury" are not sufficient to show stranding.156 ¶63 Some of this federal-court language discussing a party's standing to request an injunction is expressed in similar forms by several opinions of this Court when explaining (1) elements a plaintiff must prove to obtain an injunction, and (2) allegations in a petition necessary to show standing for equitable relief. We have explained in the contexts of requests for both preliminary and permanent injunctions that the injury of the plaintiff must not be nominal, theoretical or speculative.157 Further, this injury or threat of injury shown by a party must be based upon a "reasonable probability" of its occurrence. It is not sufficient ground for injunction that the injurious acts may possibly be committed or that injury may possibly result from the acts sought to be prevented; but there must be at least a reasonable probability that the injury will be done if no injunction is granted, and not a mere fear or apprehension of same. Sunray Oil Co. v. Cortez Oil Co., 1941 OK 77, 112 P.2d 792 , 796 , quoting Simons v. Fahnestock, 1938 OK 264, 78 P.2d 388 (syllabus by the Court). The conduct of the officials Farley seeks to enjoin must be acts which upon their performance will cause irreparable injury to legal rights of Farley which are cognizable in equity.158 In Independent School Dist. No. 9 of Tulsa Cnty. v.Glass,159 we explained allegations of injury necessary to show standing for equitable relief could be challenged by a motion to dismiss which did not test the merits of the elements of proof necessary to obtain injunctive relief. Before a litigant possesses standing as a proper party to seek injunctive relief, it must be alleged that: the challenged action has caused him/her injury in fact; the relief sought would remedy the injury; and, the interest sought to be protected is within the zone of interest to be protected or regulated by the statute in question. For purposes of ruling on a motion to dismiss for lack of standing, the trial court and the reviewing court must construe the petition in favor of the complaining party. It is not necessary to decide whether a litigant will ultimately be entitled to any relief in order to hold that the party has standing to seek judicial redress for his/her grievance. The proper inquiry concerning standing is whether the plaintiff has in fact suffered injury to a legally protected interest as contemplated by statutory or constitutional provisions. If he has not, standing does not exist, and the case must be dismissed. If standing exists, the case must proceed on the merits. Glass, 639 P.2d at 1237 (note omitted). The nature of a plaintiff's injury is one of the elements for proof necessary to obtain an injunction and also a standing requirement which may be challenged at the pleading stage. When testing the sufficiency of a petition the allegations of injury must state an infringement upon a legal interest possessed by the plaintiff and the threat of infringement must not be speculative or hypothetical. Glass, supra. ¶64 When a legal proceeding is brought for injunctive relief because of a public official's failure to comply with law, then the plaintiff must possess a legal interest or cause of action arising from this failure personal to the plaintiff and apart from the public generally, unless the legislature has expressly authorized the equitable remedy, such as an injunction to restrain an illegal tax and the plaintiff possesses standing as a taxpayer.160 We have explained this rule in various ways. For example: (1) The Court has never approved of a general class of non-Hohfeldian161 private parties who may bring public actions for the vindication of public rights and the correction of purely public wrongs of whatever nature;162 (2) The plaintiff must possess a cause of action, a cognizable legal injury, at the time of the suit and this injury must be of such nature it warrants a remedy in equity;163 and (3) Equity may be used to restrain public officials from threatened acts which are ultra vires and beyond the scope of their authority, or acts which are unlawful, when the acts of the official would cause irreparable injury or destroy rights of the complainant cognizable in equity.164 ¶65 Farley's request for an injunction is based upon an allegation that the City has the proper policy of following NFPA standards, but is imperfectly implementing those standards with insufficient training for firemen required to rescue people from swift flowing flood waters. She alleges she needs an injunction to ensure she, as a citizen, will be rescued in a future flash flood. She does not allege any citizens of the City have suffered an injury because of this inadequate training. She alleges her husband, a fireman, died as a result of inadequate training before the City started training for rescues during flash floods. Farley is not a fireman receiving this allegedly inadequate training. ¶66 Farley's petition alleges flash flooding occurred at a certain location where her husband died. While she alleges her residence is "in a flood plain" she makes no allegations she has been in a flash flood and needed a swift water rescue. Her allegation that an injunction is necessary to protect the citizens of the City does not show an actual or threatened injury which will occur with a reasonable probability, but is in the nature of an alleged "public wrong" to the population in a general sense. We agree with the District Court that Farley failed to show standing to seek an injunction. V. Conclusion ¶67 Plaintiff, a surviving spouse, successfully obtained a death benefits award in the Workers' Compensation Commission. She then brought a District Court action for damages alleging the death of her spouse was caused by negligence and an intentional tort committed by her spouse's employer who is a local government entity. She argued her action was also for the benefit of her surviving child, as well as the surviving parents and brother of the deceased. We conclude: (1) A tort action seeking damages for a surviving spouse, surviving child, and parents of a deceased adult child does not survive in a 12 O.S. § 1053 wrongful death action when (a) an exclusive worker's compensation remedy for survivors is substituted for a wrongful death action, and (b) the decedent's employer possesses governmental tort claim sovereign immunity barring a tort action for damages at the time of decedent's death; (2) The brother of the deceased did not possess a section 1053 claim for loss of companionship; and (3) Plaintiff lacked standing to seek injunctive relief. ¶68 The wrongful death injury was adjudicated and compensated by a successful workers' compensation claim after the death of the decedent. This successful adjudication demonstrates the decedent's injury was exclusively before the Commission and not cognizable as a District Court claim at the time of decdent's death. The parents' claim for loss of companionship damages was extinguished at the time of decedent's death and did not survive. We affirm the District Court's dismissal of the petition with prejudice. ¶69 CONCUR: GURICH, C.J., DARBY, V.C.J., KAUGER, WINCHESTER, EDMONDSON, KANE, and ROWE, JJ. ¶70 DISSENT: COLBERT, J.¶71 DISQUALIFIED: COMBS, J. FOOT