Opinion ID: 2566260
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: general observations

Text: ¶ 21 The Workers' Compensation Act [4] provides a substitute remedy to an employee for accidental injuries received during covered employment. The Act removes the burden of proving negligence. In exchange, the employer receives protection from any other liability to the employee. This protection extends to all liability, whether direct or indirect, that results from the employee's injuries. Harter Concrete Products v. Harris, 1979 OK 38, ¶ 7, 592 P.2d 526, 528. The Act is a mutual compromise. Weber v. Armco, 1983 OK 53, ¶ 4, 663 P.2d 1221, 1224. It encompasses all injuries arising from the employment relationship. ¶ 22 In a workers' compensation case where an insurer or a self-insurer fails to pay, the court ordering the payment must enforce its ruling. Both the Workers' Compensation Court and the District Court have provisions and the power to protect their judicial pronouncements. Injecting a new tort into the process is improper. ¶ 23 Other jurisdictions are divided over the issue of whether the workers' compensation insurer may invoke the employer's immunity from suits as a defense against a bad faith lawsuit. A slight majority favors immunity from suit. [5] An exhaustive listing and analysis of the holdings of the high courts of sister states would not be complete without an analysis of their individual workers' compensation laws. We consider this unnecessary because our holding today is merely an extension of our holdings in prior cases. ¶ 24 In Kuykendall we observed there are no Oklahoma cases holding an employer liable for bad faith breach in paying a Workers' Compensation award. Kuykendall, 2002 OK 96, ¶ 8, 66 P.3d at 376-377. We then discuss the difference between a holding and  obiter dictum  as well as the cases of Goodwin, Whitson, Anderson, [6] and Fehring. Though these cases arguably predict a cause of action for bad faith against a workers' compensation carrier for post-award conduct, such predictions were dicta. As dicta, this language fails to constitute a judicial decision or holding. Accordingly, it would be inappropriate and improper for us to overrule such dicta. [7] The expressions of opinion in the above-referenced cases do not reflect a correct statement of the law in Oklahoma. Oklahoma does not recognize the tort of bad faith against a workers' compensation insurance carrier for post-award conduct.