Opinion ID: 4147613
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: standard of review

Text: ¶9 In the realm of workers' compensation, the law in effect at the time of the injury controls both the award of benefits and the appellate standard of review. Vasquez v. Dillard's, Inc. , 2016 OK 89, ¶25 n.60, 381 P.3d 768; Holliman v. Twister Drilling Co. , 2016 OK 82, ¶5, 377 P.3d 133; Williams Companies, Inc. v. Dunkelgod , 2012 OK 96, ¶¶14-18, 295 P.3d 1107. Brown's injury occurred on March 25, 2014. Appellate review of the judgment in this matter is governed by 85A O.S. Supp. 2013 § 73, which provides in pertinent part: C. The judgment, decision or award of the Commission shall be final and conclusive on all questions within its jurisdiction between the parties unless an action is commenced in the Supreme Court of this state to review the judgment, decision or award within twenty (20) days of being sent to the parties. Any judgment, decision or award made by an administrative law judge shall be stayed until all appeal rights have been waived or exhausted. The Supreme Court may modify, reverse, remand for rehearing, or set aside the judgment or award only if it was: 1. In violation of constitutional provisions; 2. In excess of the statutory authority or jurisdiction of the Commission; 3. Made on unlawful procedure; 4. Affected by other error of law; 5. Clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, material, probative and substantial competent evidence; 6. Arbitrary or capricious; 7. Procured by fraud; or 8. Missing findings of fact on issues essential to the decision. ¶10 Brown alleges both legal error concerning statutory interpretation and constitutional claims. The issues of a statute's constitutional validity and of its construction and application are questions of law subject to de novo review. Lee v. Bueno , 2016 OK 97, ¶6, 381 P.3d 736; Butler v. Jones ex rel., State ex rel., Okla. Dep't of Corrections , 2013 OK 105, ¶5, 321 P.3d 161; Gilbert v. Security Finance Corp. of Okla , 2006 OK 58, ¶2, 152 P.3d 165. Under that standard on appeal, this Court assumes plenary, independent, and non-deferential authority to reexamine the lower tribunal's legal rulings. Lee , 2016 OK 97, ¶6; Crownover v. Keel , 2015 OK 35, ¶12, 357 P.3d 470; Butler , 2013 OK 105, ¶5. ¶11 The interpretation and application of the statutes at issue in this cause, however, also implicates 85A O.S. Supp. 2013 §78(c)(5). The language of this provision is similar to that used by this Court concerning its review of factual matters in other administrative proceedings. See Okla. Dept. of Public Safety v. McCrady , 2007 OK 39, ¶10, 176 P.3d 1194 (order subject to reversal if agency's findings were clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, material, probative and substantial competent evidence); Dugger v. State ex rel. Okla. Tax Com'n , 1992 OK 105, ¶9, 834 P.2d 964. The Legislature is undoubtedly familiar with the opinions of this Court applying the standard of review for factual determinations of administrative tribunals, and by including similar language in the form of 85A O.S. Supp. 2013 §78(c)(5) likely intended to invoke that standard. See Peoplelink, LLC v. Bear , 2014 OK 65, ¶6, 373 P.3d 1019. Accordingly, on issues of fact, the Commission's order will be affirmed if the record contains substantial evidence in support of the facts upon which it is based and the order is otherwise free of error. McCrady , 2007 OK 39, ¶10; Dugger , 1992 OK 105, ¶9.