Opinion ID: 1452606
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Duality of Jurisdiction

Text: Because health-care-related liability in a compensation case stands imposed, in the first instance, on the employer, [11] the WC court has primary jurisdiction not only of compensation claims but also of ancillary quests by providers for approval of their necessary medical services. [12] Once the WC court's jurisdiction is invoked and the district court has been given proper notice that the former tribunal has the claim sub judice, the latter forum must defer to the primary jurisdiction of the WC court and await that forum's adjudication. [13] In short, the worker is not to be deemed liable in a district court action for medical treatment arising from a compensable injury until the WC court has acted in a pending claim by either imposing liability upon the employer or absolving it from the statutory burden. When Aguirre formally apprised the district court of the WC claim's pendency, it was the trial court's duty to reinquire into its own jurisdiction of the case with a view to deciding if, at that point, the provider's demand was in fact cognizable in a different forum. [14] If satisfied that a WC claim for the accident in which the worker sustained an injury was then pending, the trial court would be under a duty to stay further proceedings in the action and await the outcome of the compensation case. The district court's power would be deemed restored after final adjudication of the employer's obligation has been effected in the WC proceeding. We are of course mindful of the language in 85 O.S.Supp.1996 § 14(E) by which the district court appears to be ousted of its cognizance over actions that deal with a worker's medical expense. The pertinent terms of § 14(E) are:    The order of the judge [for payment of medical expenses] shall be subject to the same appellate procedure set forth in Section 3.6 of this title for all other orders of the Court. The right to recover charges for every type of medical care for personal injuries arising out of and in the course of covered employment as herein defined, shall lie solely with the Workers' Compensation Court, and all jurisdiction of the other trial courts of this state over such action is hereby abolished.    (Emphasis added.) In light of the provisions of Art. 7 § 7, Okl. Const., [15] which confer on the district court unlimited original jurisdiction, the attempted statutory ouster in § 14(E)must be treated as no more than a legislative call for that constitutional forum's mandated deference to the WC court's unimpaired power over its pending claims. Today's pronouncement gives that very meaning to the quoted provisions of § 14(E). When a statute is susceptible to more than one construction, it must be given that meaning which will free it from constitutional doubt rather than one which would leave it fraught with some lingering fundamental-law infirmities. [16]