Title: Torres v. Seaboard Foods, LLC
Citation: 2016 OK 20
Docket Number: 
State: Oklahoma
Issuer: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Date: March 1, 2016

Torres v. Seaboard Foods, LLC Annotate this Case Justia Opinion Summary Petitioner Yaumary Torres, a former employee of Seaboard Foods, LLC, filed a workers' compensation claim alleging she was injured on-the-job and needed surgery. Seaboard argued that she was barred from receiving workers' compensation because she alleged a cumulative-trauma injury and she had not worked a continuous 180-day period for Seaboard. The administrative law judge denied her claim, finding she had not worked the 180-day period. The Workers' Compensation Commission affirmed the order of the administrative judge. The administrative order was appealed to the Workers' Compensation Commission, and the Commission affirmed the order of the administrative judge. Petitioner then appealed the Commission's order to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held 85A O.S. sec. 2(14) violated the Due Process Section of the Oklahoma Constitution, Art. 2 section 7, when applied to petitioner because the statute's overinclusive and underinclusive classifications were not rationally related to legitimate State interests of: (1) preventing workers' compensation fraud; and (2) decreasing employers' costs. The Workers' Compensation commission was reversed and the matter remanded for further proceedings. 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 . TORRES v. SEABOARD FOODS, LLC 2016 OK 20 Case Number: 113649 Decided: 03/01/2016 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. YAUMARY CONCEPCION TORRES, Petitioner, v. SEABOARD FOODS, LLC, AMERICAN ZURICH INS. CO., and THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION, Respondents. APPEAL FROM THE OKLAHOMA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION ¶0 Petitioner (employee) filed a workers' compensation claim for a cumulative-trauma injury pursuant to the Administrative Workers' Compensation Act, Oklahoma Statutes, Title 85A, Section 2(14). The administrative law judge, T. Shane Curtin, determined employee was barred from obtaining any workers' compensation remedy because when she filed her claim she had not worked a continuous 180-day period for her employer. The administrative order was appealed to the Workers' Compensation Commission, and the Commission affirmed the order of the administrative judge. Employee appealed the Commission's order to the Supreme Court and the Court retained the appeal. We hold: 85A O.S. § 2(14) violates the Due Process Section of the Oklahoma Constitution, Art. 2 § 7, when applied to employee because the statute's overinclusive and underinclusive classifications are not rationally related to legitimate State interests of (1) preventing workers' compensation fraud and (2) decreasing employers' costs. ORDER OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION REVERSED; PROCEEDING REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS Bob Burke, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Petitioner. Juan Maldonado, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Petitioner. Connie M. Wolfe, Connie M. Wolfe & Associates, P.L.L.C., Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Respondent, Seaboard Foods, L.L.C. V. Glenn Coffee and Denise K. Davick, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Amicus Curiae, State Chamber of Oklahoma. EDMONDSON, J. I. Introduction ¶1 Petitioner, a former employee, filed a workers' compensation claim and alleged she was injured on-the-job and needed surgery. Her former employer (employer) argued that she was barred from receiving workers' compensation because she alleged a cumulative-trauma injury and she had not worked a continuous 180-day period for that employer. The administrative law judge denied her claim because she had not worked the 180-day period. The Workers' Compensation Commission affirmed the order of the administrative judge. ¶2 Employer also argues on appeal petitioner has no right to file either a workers' compensation claim or seek a common-law remedy in a District Court. Employer asserts petitioner has no legal right or remedy to receive any type of compensation or medical care from her employer in any form. Employer argues petitioner has no right to an opportunity to prove her claim of injury before any court or any administrative agency. Employee argues her employer is making an unconstitutional application of workers' compensation statutes. ¶3 Because the employee challenged the constitutionality of 85A O.S. §§ 2(14) & 5, this Court issued an order providing the Oklahoma Attorney General, Speaker of the House of Representatives, and the President Pro Tempore an opportunity to intervene by filing entries of appearance herein and briefing issues. They did not intervene and file briefs. The amicus curiae, State Chamber, filed a brief in support of the constitutionality of the challenged statutes. ¶4 Several decades of court precedent from both the U. S. Supreme Court and the Oklahoma Supreme Court on the subject of how state and federal statutes interact with State and Federal Due Process constitutional provisions clearly show an unconstitutional application of a workers' compensation statute by employer in the matter before the Court. We hold 85A O.S. § 2(14) violates the Due Process Section of the Oklahoma Constitution, Art. 2 § 7, when applied to employee because the statute's overinclusive and underinclusive classifications are not rationally related to legitimate State interests of (1) preventing workers' compensation fraud and (2) decreasing employers' costs. II. Workers' Compensation Statutes Raised by the Parties ¶5 Two workers' compensation statutes are used by employer in support of its argument: 85A O. S. Supp. 2013 § 2(14) & § 5. The first defines cumulative trauma based upon repetitive physical activities and adds a condition requiring an employee to have completed one hundred eighty (180) days of continuous employment. 14. "Cumulative trauma" means an injury to an employee that is caused by the combined effect of repetitive physical activities extending over a period of time in the course and scope of employment. Cumulative trauma shall not mean fatigue, soreness or general aches and pain that may have been caused, aggravated, exacerbated or accelerated by the employee's course and scope of employment. Cumulative trauma shall have resulted directly and independently of all other causes and the employee shall have completed at least one hundred eighty (180) days of continuous active employment with the employer; 85A O.S.Supp. 2013 § 2 (14). Employer argues that two reasons exist for an employee to work 180 continuous days as a condition to receive workers' compensation. The first, "It is reasonable to conceive that a worker who has worked for a significant period of time is more likely to have sustained an injury, while a worker who works for a shorter period did not. . . [and the 180-day requirement] places reasonable qualifications on what a compensable injury is, and what it is not."1 This argument may be reduced to the simple statement that the Legislature's role includes determining what constitutes a compensable injury. ¶6 The second argument is that preventing fraud and controlling economic concerns are legitimate State interests, and the Legislature has a role in preventing fraud and advancing economic interests by decreasing employers' costs. The brief of amicus curiae provides rankings from different states based upon costs for workers' compensation insurance premiums, but it does so using a rule-prohibited Brandeis brief method.2 However, amicus curiae's argument supporting a legislative decrease in employers' costs as a legitimate State interest may be considered apart from the Brandeis brief facts. This is so because employer's argument concerning employers' costs is sufficiently broad to fairly include employers' costs associated with workers' compensation insurance. ¶7 Employer makes the following argument: This limitation bears a rational relationship to a legitimate State interest. Preventing fraud is a legitimate state interest. Placing a requirement that an employee work for a period of time before qualifying for a compensable injury ensures that frivolous claims and fraudulent allegations are controlled. Respondent's Answer Brief, at pp. 5-6. Amicus curiae similarly argues that the 180-day period is a "durational requirement . . . necessary to define the bounds of the injury . . . [and the] exposure requirement merely serves to ferret out fraudulent claims and ensure that the injury claimed is fairly attributable to the period of employment."3 ¶8 Employee recognizes that legitimate State interests include legislation to prevent fraud and advance economic interests. Employee also recognizes the Legislature's role in creating workers' compensation laws. Employee argues that § 2(14) class of employees who work less than 180 days is a statutory class that violates the Due Process section of the Oklahoma Constitution, Okla. Const. Art. 2 § 7.4 ¶9 Employer also argues that employee is barred from bringing a District Court action against her former employer. Employer relies upon 85A O.S. Supp. 2013 § 5.5 Paragraph "C" of § 5 states: "The immunity from civil liability described in subsection A of this section shall apply regardless of whether the injured employee is denied compensation or deemed ineligible to receive compensation under this act." Employer argues that although employee is not eligible to bring a workers' compensation claim because of the 180-day requirement of § 2, employee is also barred from bringing an action in a District Court. ¶10 Employee argues that when the workers' compensation statutes were originally created in several States a grand bargain was created. This bargain consisted of an injured worker relinquishing a common-law right to bring an action in a District Court against the worker's employer and the worker gained more certain statutory compensation but the compensation was less in amount. On the other hand, the employer relinquished certain common-law defenses in a District Court action and gained an economic liability that was less and fixed by statute.6 Employee argues that statutorily barring both a workers' compensation remedy and a District Court remedy violates the grand bargain and the Oklahoma Constitution. She argues for a right to proceed against her employer by an action filed in a District Court. ¶11 This Court has a fundamental duty to ascertain and give effect to, or enforce, the Legislature's intent expressed in any statute the Legislature creates.7 If the language of the statute is plain and unambiguous, the legislative intent is deemed to be expressed by the statutory language.8 Rules of construction are applied to determine legislative intent when the statutory language is ambiguous.9 We first examine § 2(14) and conclude its language is not ambiguous, and apply the meaning of § 2 prior to examining § 5. ¶12 The employee in this controversy alleges a cumulative trauma injury occurred, in fact, during less than 180 continuous days of employment. Respondent and amicus curiae do not assert that § 2 (14) is a legislative determination that a cumulative injury does not, or cannot, in fact occur during the first 180 days of a person's employment. They agree that cumulative trauma is an injury "caused by the combined effect of repetitive physical activities extending over a period of time in the course and scope of employment." The brief of amicus curiae emphasizes this language to show that cumulative injury occurs during a period of time. ¶13 Respondent and amicus curiae appear to agree that the statutory language would not prohibit an employee from filing a cumulative trauma claim on the 181st day of employment, where the claim would be based upon repetitive and cumulative trauma occurring for a period of time during the previous 180 days of employment. The language requiring 180 days of employment is thus not construed as defining the nature of an injury, but a condition required to file a claim against an employer in addition to the employee having suffered an injury. As explained by amicus curiae, "the Legislature . . . delineated a particular number of days that an individual must be employed prior to filing a claim for an injury that was sustained by 'repetitive physical activities,'" or the "legislative state purpose" of the 180-day requirement is that "an individual be employed for a certain length of time prior to subjecting the employer to a claim for a repetitive injury." ¶14 Respondent and amicus curiae also characterize the 180-day employment language in § 2(14) as one element defining "cumulative trauma." Construing the language as part of a definition for cumulative trauma versus viewing it as a condition for filing a claim does not help employer's legal position. Regardless whether the language is part of the definition of a cumulative trauma or a condition for filing a claim in addition to defining trauma based upon repetitive injury, the statute is determining as a matter of law a class of employees who are prohibited from filing a workers' compensation claim although they may have suffered, in fact, a repetitive injury arising out of the course and scope of employment.10 The language in § 2(14) cannot be read as creating an irrebutable presumption that no cumulative trauma repetitive injury can occur, as a matter of fact, during the 180-day period.11 ¶15 We agree with respondent that § 2 (14) does not define a cumulative trauma as an injury which has necessarily been repeated every day for 180 days. Section § 2(14) clearly imposes a duration-of-employment condition as a necessary predicate for filing a cumulative trauma workers' compensation claim. ¶16 The language of § 2(14) creates two classes of employees alleging a cumulative trauma injury. The first class are those employees who allege, in fact, they have suffered a cumulative trauma compensable injury during the first 180 days of employment and who may file a claim for compensation on or after the 181st day of continuous employment. The second class are those employees who allege, in fact, they have suffered a cumulative trauma compensable injury during the first 180 days of employment and who are barred by § 2 (14) from filing a workers' compensation claim because they have not completed 180 days of continuous employment. Employee alleges she is in this latter class of employees, and that the duration-of-employment predicate for filing a workers' compensation claim in § 2(14) is unconstitutional because she is an injured worker innocent of the evil that § 2(14) was designed to address. III. Employee's Burden to Show Unconstitutionality ¶17 A constitutional analysis begins with the well-known judicial recognition that the Oklahoma Legislature is constitutionally vested by Article 5 § 3612 of our Constitution with a supreme legislative power extending to all rightful subjects,13 and the presumed constitutionality of a legislative enactment is rebutted only when either the State Constitution or federal law prohibits that enactment.14 When this Court examines a legislative enactment it tries to construe and apply it in a manner that avoids conflict with our Constitution and give the enactment the force of law.15 The burden to show the presence of a constitutional flaw in a statute is on the party who asserts its unconstitutionality.16 A court's function, when the constitutionality of a statute is put at issue, is limited to a determination of the validity or invalidity of the statute17 with respect to a party in the controversy who is aggrieved by application of the challenged statute.18 IV. Employer's Reliance on United States R. R. Retirement Bd. v. Fritz. ¶18 Respondent and amicus curiae argue a legislative body need not state its reason for creating legislation and a legislative right or remedy is solely within the discretion of the legislative body. They conclude these principles make employee's claims without merit. We address this argument first because if they are correct then their argument would be outcome determinative on the constitutional issues raised by the employee. However, as we explain, we conclude their argument is insufficient. ¶19 Employer relies upon the U.S. Supreme Court opinion in United States R. R. Retirement Bd. v. Fritz,19 for the principles that (1) a legislative body does not need to state its reasons for creating a statute, and (2) when the right involved is purely a statutory benefit such as a railroad retirement benefit, a benefit within the legislative grace of Congress, as in United States R. R. Retirement Bd., the proper decision-maker for drawing the line, or creating the classification is a legislative body. Employer expands upon this latter principle and argues that the Legislature has the power to determine what type of injury "qualifies as [a] compensable injury . . . The fact that an employee working 120 days falls on one side of the line and an employee working 180 days falls on the other side is not relevant."20 ¶20 Amicus curiae makes a similar argument explaining that the Legislature has "the authority to prescribe rights and remedies for addressing occupational injuries," and quotes Adams v. Iten Biscuit Co.,21 for the proposition that the creation of workers' compensation statutes are within the police power of the Legislature. While this Court agrees with United States R. R. Retirement Bd., and its principles, our agreement does not lead to the conclusion of respondent and amicus curiae that the challenged statutes must necessarily be constitutional. ¶21 Addressing the first cited principle from United States R. R. Retirement Bd., we agree the Legislature is not required to explain its reasons for creating a statute or expressly state that it has a particular intent when a crafting legislation. But this Court has a fundamental duty to ascertain and give effect to, or enforce, the Legislature's intent expressed in any statute the Legislature creates.22 In cases not involving the constitutionality of a statute, a court is required to determine legislative intent and the meaning of the statutory language and then apply that meaning to the issues in controversy.23 While language indicating legislative intent informs and assists a court with determining what a legislature is attempting to accomplish by legislation, a court's constitutional analysis must be based upon what the legislation actually accomplishes by that which is created by the statute, and not by what a legislature states it is accomplishing. Obvious examples include, whether a payment is a "tax" or a "license fee" is not determined by the name given it by legislation,24 a gift of public funds to a private entity for a nonpublic purpose may not be made constitutional by legislation stating that the transaction is something other than a prohibited gift,25 and legislation collecting funds from the public as part of a tax code are State funds although legislation states they are not funds belonging to the State.26 These examples are not novel and reflect the long-recognized principle that a court's constitutional analysis of a statute is based upon what the statute actually accomplishes and not solely by a characterization given to the statute by a legislative body.27 Parties in a controversy advocate legal positions relating to the scope or application of legislation. A court's function requires it to examine and adjudicate that issue regardless whether the Legislature has expressly articulated its reasons for creating a statute, and when the Legislature has stated its reasons the Court must examine them in relation to any constitutional provision raised by any party in the controversy. ¶22 Addressing the second cited principle from United States R. R. Retirement Bd., and as we explain more fully herein, an argument which relies on the power of a legislative body to create or abolish statutory rights and remedies as proof that a statutory classification is rational, is an argument that not only contains a fallacy28 or an insufficient generality,29 but is also historically-discredited insufficient legal reasoning, including in circumstances where a legislative police power has been exercised. We address this issue within the context of the employee's due process claim. V. Employee's Claim that the Due Process Section of the Oklahoma Constitution is Violated by Application of 85A O.S. Supp. 2013 § 2(14) & § 5 ¶23 Due process often has been explained by this Court in opinions discussing both the Fourteenth Amendment's30 Due Process Clause and Oklahoma's Due Process Section in the Oklahoma Constitution. The Oklahoma Due Process Section31 provides a bundle of rights and one or more of those rights may be in addition to a right provided by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution.32 However, because (1) the Oklahoma Due Process Section is coextensive with and protects, at a minimum, those rights which are also provided by the Fourteenth Amendment,33 and (2) we hold herein that the substantive due process minimum is violated by employer's construction and application of the challenged statutes to the petitioner; we need not address whether the Oklahoma Due Process Section has a substantive due process component broader in scope than its federal counterpart in the Fourteenth Amendment.34 ¶24 One hundred years ago, the U. S. Supreme Court indicated that the Federal Due Process Clause "would likely bar states from abolishing entirely rights of action on behalf of employees suffering physical harm because of wrongs attributable to employers."35 Some authors have argued that between approximately 1870 and 1920 the U. S. Supreme Court understood the Federal Due Process Clause as setting (1) a ceiling with limits for expanding a cause of action and creating additional liability for one party when a legislature attempted a naked redistribution of wealth and (2) a floor with constitutional limits on abolishing a cause of action when the legislature deprived an individual of an opportunity to vindicate a basic interest, such as a right to personal bodily integrity that traditionally has been enforceable against others who invade that right.36 ¶25 Then the High Court had a period where it developed a rational-basis review used for challenges to legislation that was characterized as social and economic in its application and not impacting a personal fundamental right.37 Consistent with this approach the Oklahoma Supreme Court has also stated and applied a rational-basis standard of review for due process challenges to enactments classified as "economic legislation."38 However, while the High Court gave a more legislatively deferential constitutional review of legislation involving economic regulation, it also advanced a less deferential review of legislation which acted to restrict a person's constitutionally protected liberty interests.39 For example, fifty years ago one author commented on the inaccuracy of a court using a rational-basis standard for economic legislation when such legislation also diminished a constitutionally protected personal right, and argued that such legislation received a judicial review that was less deferential than a legislatively deferential rational-basis review.40 ¶26 One well-known principle is that a legislature's authority to create or abolish a right or benefit does not mean that the legislature has the authority to create an unconstitutional condition related to that right or benefit.41 Other well-known and simple principles demonstrating our required analysis are: (1) a Legislature's exercise of a police power has been historically recognized42 as subject to limits expressed by the Will of the People in provisions of the Oklahoma Constitution prohibiting unreasonable and arbitrary legislation, (2) constitutional limits on police power continue to this day,43 and (3) these limits are applicable to any exercise of governmental legislative power (including legislative power exercised by a municipality or quasi-legislative power exercised in the form of an administrative rule).44 The legislation in this controversy does more than merely identify what employees are covered by workers' compensation or define a statutory cause of action; and doing so in both overinclusive and underinclusive form makes the legislation unconstitutional. ¶27 When the Legislature exercises a police power, such exercise "is an attribute of state sovereignty . . . [and] an inherent power of the state legislature that extends to the whole system of internal regulation by which the state preserves public order, prevents offenses against the state, and insures to the people the enjoyment of rights and property reasonably consistent with like enjoyment of rights and property by others."45 Our more modern expressions of this historically recognized constitutional limitation on police power have explained that a court must examine whether legislation is rationally related to a legitimate government interest and if the challenged legislation reasonably advances that interest.46 This analysis requires an adjudication whether a legitimate State interest exists47 and whether it is rationally related to the legislation. ¶28 We recently noted the nature of this review when we quoted an opinion from 1977 which in turn quoted an opinion from 1930. It is well settled that the state, or its agents, in the exercise of its police power can extend this power only to such measures as are reasonable under all the circumstances. The means adopted must bear some real and substantial relation or be reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of a legitimate object falling within the scope of the police power, and the law or regulation must tend toward the preservation of public welfare, health, safety, or morals. Jacobs Ranch, L.L.C. v. Smith, 2006 OK 34, ¶ 52, 148 P.3d 842 , 857 quoting Suntide Inn Operating Corp. v. State, 1977 OK 204, 571 P.2d 1207 , 1210, quoting Gibbons v. Missouri, K. & T. R. Co., 1930 OK 108, 285 P. 1040. A court determines (1) if there is a legitimate government interest (a) articulated in the legislation or (b) championed by the parties or (c) expressed by a recognized public policy in support of the legislation, and (2) if that interest is reasonably advanced by the legislation. We have expressed often this two-part test in a negative form when explaining an unconstitutional exercise of the police power is an arbitrary and capricious exercise of power; i.e., the exercise of legislative power is unconstitutional when it was not reasonably devoted to a legitimate interest or end, or when the legitimate police-power interest was not regulated within reasonably necessary means for the identified State interests.48 ¶29 In due process jurisprudence involving whether a legitimate state interest exists, a court's analysis will generally be less intrusive upon an exercise of legislative discretion when the legislation is economic in nature. For many, an unforgivable jurisprudential error of Lochner was the Court substituting its own judgment for that of a legislative body on an economic issue49 with the Court deciding that the State's interest was not a legitimate economic interest.50 There are, of course, some circumstances where courts examine the legitimacy of the state's interest in economic legislation,51 but the High Court does not have a history of creating bright-line tests for defining legitimate state interests.52 Our Court frequently has been called upon by parties to make such a determination.53 ¶30 There is little doubt that a state legislature may alter private contractual rights of employers and employees when it properly exercises its police power in creating a particular workers' compensation law,54 or that workers' compensation laws, by themselves, have been considered by courts as a legitimate State interest since the compensation laws were first created.55 In our case today, we do not repeat Lochner's error of improperly rejecting an articulated economic interest of the State. We accept for the purpose of the arguments made herein, respondent's articulated State interest as legitimate in this case, i.e., the prevention of workers' compensation fraud and the decrease in an employer's costs as a result of legislative effort to prevent fraud.56 ¶31 The Due Process Section of the Oklahoma Constitution includes an equal protection element.57 Respondent and amicus curiae rely upon Gladstone v. Bartlesville Indep. School Dist. No. 30,58 and argue for the Court to use an equal protection rational-basis review of § 2(14) and § 5. Many substantive due process violations based upon impermissible underinclusive/overinclusive classifications may also support an equal protection claim.59 ¶32 When a due process or equal protection challenge is made because a statute creates different classes of people with different legal rights, a legal analysis will often discuss whether the statute's classification is underinclusive (statute includes too few people in its created class) or if the classification is overinclusive (too many people are included in the statutory class). Generally, the U. S. Supreme Court has upheld an underinclusive statute regulating solely an economic matter when only a portion of the identified evil has been regulated,60 but where the government is required to narrowly tailor its classification the concept of underinclusiveness may be used to show the lack of a compelling government interest sufficient to make the statutory classification constitutional.61 A mere overinclusiveness or underinclusiveness in statutory classification will not necessarily show a failure to satisfy a rational-basis review.62 ¶33 If a police-power statute is overinclusive and prohibits both wrongful conduct by people and innocent conduct by others, then overinclusiveness by including the innocent may be used to show the arbitrary nature of the classification created by the statute. In the 1951 case of Board or Regents v. Updegraff,63 we explained that when the police power is used the acts of the Legislature are valid so long as they are not unreasonable, arbitrary, and capricious and do not violate any of the fundamental constitutional guaranties of the State and Federal Constitutions.64 When this opinion was reversed on a different ground by the U. S. Supreme Court in Wieman v. Updegraff, the High Court applied a similar test and held due process was violated by a loyalty-oath statute that arbitrarily failed to distinguish between persons whose membership activities in certain organizations were innocent and those whose activities were based upon knowledge of the organizations' purposes.65 ¶34 The distinction made in Wieman is noteworthy because it has been applied by courts to legislation in the nature of business regulation, and both respondent and amicus curiae argue that the legislation should be treated as economic and business related. For example, in the 1951 opinion of Adwon v. Retail Grocers Ass'n, we noted our prior opinion in 194966 which held the1941 Unfair Sales Act unconstitutional for the reason that it violated the state and federal constitutions by punishing for a sale for less than cost regardless of any wrongful intent by an innocent party. The Legislature subsequently deleted the unconstitutional language and the amended Act was before the Court in Adwon. A party made a claim that the Unfair Sales Act violated due process of law and relied upon opinions from Pennsylvania and New Jersey, which the Court rejected and explained that those opinions, like the former Oklahoma Act, impermissibly made no distinction in the scope of the Act between innocent conduct by individuals and those individuals committing the improper conduct the Act was designed to address by the exercise of a police power.67 ¶35 We agree with respondent and amicus curiae that decisions concerning public policy in creating and abolishing causes of action are routinely within the judgment of the Legislature. This Court has a long history of recognizing the Legislature's general police power to alter private personal rights in contexts of creating or abolishing a cause of action. For example, in Davis Oil Co. v. Cloud,68 while the members of the Court were not unanimous in characterizing the legal interests altered by the then recently enacted Oklahoma Surface Damages Act,69 the Justices joining the Court's opinion and the four dissenting Justices all agreed that the Legislature has the power to change private property or rights of a person when the change is within a proper exercise of the Legislature's police powers.70 However, the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized substantive due process limitations on state law arbitrarily increasing a person's legal liability. In the 1996 case of BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore,71 and the 2003 case of State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell,72 the High Court held that excessive damages violated the substantive component of the Due Process Clause, i.e., this constitutional provision provided a ceiling above which damages could not be awarded. In these cases the Court recognized the legitimate state interests in awarding punitive damages, but excessive damages were held to constitute an arbitrary deprivation of property.73 ¶36 In BMW, punitive damages were awarded to punish the defendant's business practices, and the Court used a substantive component of due process in holding that the excessive nature of the damages were not "reasonably necessary to vindicate the State's legitimate interests" in punishing the prohibited business practices.74 Although the Court's opinions in BMW, supra, and State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., supra, have the effect of using substantive due process to establish a due process ceiling, the Court has not recently used substantive due process to state that the extinguishment of a cause of action violates a due process floor of minimum requirements. However, it is clear that a State's legitimate interests in regulating business practices are not exempt from the requirements of substantive Due Process. The Court essentially held that the imposition of arbitrarily imposed economic liability violated due process. When the Legislature decreases workers' compensation liability (and costs) for the class of employers by barring an injured employee from filing a claim, such legislation also increases potential economic liability to employees and increased economic risk allocation by a diminished duty owed to the employees. In other words, the creation of an arbitrarily designed employer immunity by shifting economic loss to an innocent injured employee would also violate State and federal Due Process. ¶37 Is prohibiting injured workers from filing a claim for cumulative trauma during the first 180 days of employment reasonably necessary (or a nonarbitrary classification) to vindicate the State's legitimate interest in preventing fraudulent workers' compensation claims?75 In other words, is barring an injured employee from filing a cumulative trauma claim during the first 180 days of employment an arbitrary method to vindicate the State's interest in preventing fraudulent claims? ¶38 In Jimenez v. Weinberger, the U. S. Supreme Court addressed the issue of a statute created for the purpose of avoiding or stopping Social Security Act "spurious claims" by creating two classes of claimants.76 In addition to denying one class of claimants eligibility for a benefit, the statute also "denies them any opportunity to prove dependency in order to establish their 'claim' to support and, hence, their right to eligibility."77 In Jimenez, a statutory class of people was created for the purpose of stopping fraudulent claims and these people were denied the opportunity to show that their claims were legitimate and nonfraudulent. ¶39 Similar to Jimenez, § 2(14) creates two classes of employees with cumulative trauma injuries for the purpose of avoiding or stopping spurious (or fraudulent) workers' compensation claims, one class is entitled to compensation and another class is not. Also similar to Jimenez, § 2(14) individuals are denied the opportunity to establish their claims and their right to receive compensation for injuries arising out of the course and scope of employment, i.e., one class may file a claim and one may not. ¶40 The High Court noted prevention of spurious claims is a legitimate governmental interest.78 The Court explained that "It does not follow, however, that the blanket and conclusive exclusion . . . [of one class to benefits] is reasonably related to the prevention of spurious claims."79 The Court explained that assuming the class of individuals are, "in fact," within the class of people who would be entitled to benefits but for the challenged statutory classification, then the statutory classification discriminates "without any basis for the distinction since the potential for spurious claims is exactly the same as to both subclasses."80 ¶41 Two years after Jimenez, the U. S. Supreme Court explained its holding by stating that if a conclusive exclusion of one class to a statutory benefit is combined with a statutory prohibition for members of this class to show they would otherwise be entitled to the statutory benefit; then the purpose of providing a statutory benefit to those entitled is lost as to those individuals. Further, an articulated purpose of preventing spurious claims was constitutionally insufficient in Jimenez because "to conclusively deny one subclass benefits presumptively available to the other denies the former the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the due process provision of the Fifth Amendment."81 Different United States Courts of Appeals have observed that a rational basis form of review was used in Jimenez, and that this review has been used to invalidate legislation.82 ¶42 Language in Jimenez, refers to both the underinclusiveness and overinclusiveness of the challenged legislation.83 Similar issues are present in our case today. When considering the articulated purpose of preventing workers' compensation fraud, a statute creating a class of employees who are injured, in fact, with a cumulative trauma injury during the first 180 days of employment with their then current employer, and then they are conclusively placed within a class of employees who file fraudulent claims, that statutory placement is overinclusive by lumping together the innocent with the guilty. On the other hand, if one of the purposes of workers' compensation is to provide statutory compensation for employees actually suffering an injury arising out of the course and scope of employment;84 then the statute is underinclusive because it fails to include employees actually injured during the first 180 days of employment. ¶43 We also observe, like the U. S. Supreme Court in Jimenez, the prevention of spurious and fraudulent claims is a legitimate governmental interest. As noted by the High Court, it does not follow, however, that the blanket and conclusive exclusion of one class of injured employees to benefits is reasonably related to the prevention of spurious claims. Assuming that employees with less than 180 days of employment are, in fact, within the class of people who would be entitled for benefits but for the 180-day challenged statutory classification, then the statutory classification discriminates without any rational basis for the distinction since the potential for filing spurious claims is exactly the same for cumulative-trauma employees before and after 180 days of continuous employment. ¶44 In Weber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.,85 the Court held Louisiana's workers' compensation scheme violated the Fourteenth Amendment by distinguishing for different treatment the class of dependent unacknowledged illegitimate children and the class of dependent legitimate children, and observing "Moreover, imposing disabilities on the illegitimate child is contrary to the basic concept of our system that legal burdens should bear some relationship to individual responsibility or wrongdoing."86 Although we need not adopt this rationale of Weber as a necessary part of our a process analysis to adjudicate the present controversy,87 we note § 2(14) which prohibits an injured worker from filing a non-fraudulent claim prior to the 180-day period does not show a rational relationship between legally allocating individual responsibility with the wrongful conduct that the State interest seeks to prevent. ¶45 Employer also makes an argument that § 2(14) and § 5 work together so that employee has no right and no remedy for her alleged injury and this combination of the two statutes is constitutional. Paragraph "C" of § 5 states: "The immunity from civil liability described in subsection A of this section shall apply regardless of whether the injured employee is denied compensation or deemed ineligible to receive compensation under this act." Respondent argues employee is prohibited from filing an action in the District Court against her employer although she has no workers' compensation remedy. ¶46 The § 5 prohibition of filing in a District Court shows that the interest of the State behind the classification scheme cannot be solely the prevention of fraudulent claims filed with the Workers' Compensation Commission.88 Generally, the act of classifying is grouping or segregating objects and that act assumes a purpose for the classification to accomplish a particular result that is something other than a mere purpose to classify.89 Respondent and amicus curiae state the two statutes are economic in nature. They state the purpose is a State interest in lowering costs to employers. A statute regulating economic affairs is not unconstitutional merely because an economic detriment or benefit is created by a statutory classification. The very nature of such statutes is to alter economic benefits with or without corresponding economic detriments. Again, for the purpose of our analysis we assume that lowering an employer's costs is a legitimate State interest. ¶47 But their argument repeats a similar flaw. They argue a rational basis for legislation is shown if the purpose of a statute, as articulated by a legitimate State interest, is accomplished in any degree regardless of the irrationality of the classifications created by the statute. Their first argument is that a statute with a purpose to decrease workers' compensation fraud is constitutional if workers' compensation fraud is, or potentially will be, decreased in any degree by operation of the statute. Their second argument using the legitimate State interest in lowering costs to employers becomes: A statute with a purpose to lower an employer's costs is constitutional if employer's costs are, or potentially will be, decreased in any degree by operation of the statute. Just as their first argument fails to include concepts of overinclusive and underinclusive constitutional flaws in statutes receiving a rational basis review, so does their second argument. We decline their invitation to adopt their position that class distinctions between employees with similar injuries is rationally related to a legitimate State interest although principles of underinclusiveness and overinclusiveness show irrationality in the classification. ¶48 We conclude the overinclusive and underinclusive nature of § 2(14) as it relates to the legitimate State interest to prevent workers' compensation fraud and its prohibition preventing an employee from filing a non-fraudulent workers' compensation claim violates the Due Process Section of the Oklahoma Constitution, Art. 2 § 7. Adwon v. Retail Grocers Ass'n, supra, Suntide Inn Operating Corp. v. State, supra, Jacobs Ranch, L.L.C. v. Smith, supra, Wieman v. Updegraff, supra, and Jimenez v. Weinberger, supra.90 VI. The Grand Bargain ¶49 Employee argues that when the workers' compensation statutes were originally created in several States a grand bargain was created. This bargain consisted of an injured worker relinquishing a common-law right to bring an action in a District Court against the worker's employer and the worker gained statutory compensation in a lessor amount. On the other hand, the employer relinquished certain common-law defenses in a District Court action and gained an economic liability that was both less in individual cases and fixed by statute. Employee cites to forty-two (42) provisions of the current workers' compensation scheme and argues that (1) workers' compensation remedies are inadequate, (2) the grand bargain is violated, and (3) the order denying her workers' compensation benefits should be reversed. ¶50 Two concepts are often raised as being important principles underlying workers' compensation law, (1) the State's interest in the economic welfare of injured workers, and (2) the grand bargain.91 At the time the workers' compensation laws were created it was recognized that a worker's common-law remedies in District Courts for on-the-job injuries were less than ideal. For example, in writing for the Yale Law Journal in 1911, then Oklahoma Supreme Court Justice Kane explained that the compensation laws then being enacted had a goal of compensating an injured employee so that family members economically relying on the worker should not be left "to the tender mercy of charity or a charge upon the State."92 We noted this purpose in 1935 and more recently in 2005.93 ¶51 Public policies adopted by our Legislature one hundred years ago that were foundational for establishing workers' compensation laws, such as the historic Legislature's views on the grand bargain and economic-welfare shifting, do not control or limit the current Legislature's determination of public policy. It is a well-known principle of statutory and constitutional construction that one Legislature cannot bind another, and this Court has followed this principle for several decades.94 Courts recognize that a legislature has the power to change the common law "to reflect a change of time and circumstances."95 While the English common law may be a starting point for a legal analysis, statutory law may modify the common law.96 The old hand that was at the legislative helm a hundred years ago does not control the present Legislature's view of good public policy. ¶52 This discussion of the grand bargain shows that the concept is important to the extent it is a beginning for an analysis to inform a court what may, or may not, be current and legitimate State interests (or current public policies) for the purpose of a court's statutory analysis in the context of addressing this employee's constitutional claim. We have concluded herein that § 2(14) was unconstitutionally applied to employee, and reverse the order of Workers' Compensation Commission for further administrative proceedings consistent with this opinion. Because we have determined § 2(14) creates an irrational classification and violates Okla. Const. Art. 2 § 7 when applied to employee, it is not necessary to analyze employee's claim that § 2(14) violates the grand bargain upon application of Art. 2 § 7, or if § 2 (14) is unconstitutional upon application of some other provision of our State Constitution.97 We also need not address whether § 2 (14) violates Okla. Const. Art. 2 § 6.98 ¶53 Employee's invocation of a constitutionally deficient grand bargain in the current Oklahoma statutes is a hypothetical question whose judicial resolution in this appeal would not, under the present record on appeal, alter her rights on remand.99 Employee's citation to forty-two provisions of the workers' compensation statutes is not linked by legal argument to an aggrieved legal interest of employee that would be affected on remand, and showing her status as aggrieved is a record-driven necessity100 to adjudicate her claim of constitutionally insufficient statutes101 in the absence of non-Hohfeldian standing.102 VII. Conclusion ¶54 We conclude 85A O.S.Supp. 2013 § 2(14) violates the Due Process Section of the Oklahoma Constitution, Art. 2 § 7, because its overinclusive and underinclusive classifications are not rationally related to legitimate State interests of (1) preventing workers' compensation fraud and (2) decreasing employers' costs. We do not adjudicate employee's claims challenging the construction or constitutional sufficiency of other workers' compensation statutes, or her Okla. Const. Art. 2 § 6 claim, or her assertion that the workers' compensation grand bargain has been violated. ¶55 The order of the Workers' Compensation Commission is reversed and the matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. ¶56 REIF, C. J., COMBS, V. C. J., WATT, EDMONDSON, and GURICH, JJ., concur. ¶57 COLBERT, J., concur specially. ¶58 KAUGER, WINCHESTER, and TAYLOR, JJ., concur in result. FOOT