Opinion ID: 2631037
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: meaningful review by the three-judge panel

Text: ¶ 15 Meaningful review is facilitated by an order from the trial tribunal from which the specific basis for its decision to grant or deny a claim can be determined. This requirement is not a mere technicality. [O]n-the-record findings of ultimate facts responsive to the issues shaped by the evidence as well as conclusions of law . . . are an indispensable prerequisite for judicial review. Jobe v. Am. Legion # 7, 2001 OK 75, ¶ 12, 32 P.3d 860, 864 (emphasis and citations omitted). [5] An order granting or denying workers' compensation benefits must provide the necessary elements for meaningful judicial review. It must be certain enough to (1) identify the legal theory relied upon and (2) be sufficiently specific to enable the three-judge panel to ascertain the facts on which the order is based. [6] ¶ 16 This requirement is implicit in the Rules of the Workers' Compensation Court. Okla. Stat. tit. 85, ch. 4, app. ( 2001 & Supp.2006). Rule 60(A)(3) requires that a party's request for review before a three-judge panel include [a] specific statement of each conclusion of law and finding of fact urged as error. General allegations will not be accepted. General allegations of error include statements that the decision of the trial judge is `against the clear weight of the evidence or contrary to law.' This rule clearly contemplates that the trial tribunal will have provided specific findings of fact and conclusions of law in its order granting or denying a claim for compensation. Pursuant to Rule 60, an aggrieved party must then specify each error it asserts for review by the three-judge panel. ¶ 17 Meaningful review is furthered by requiring a party to make specific allegations of factual and legal error, but such a requirement depends upon the presence of specific findings of fact and conclusions of law in the trial tribunal's order. An order that merely recites the statutory language and concludes that a claimant did not sustain an accidental personal injury arising out of and in the course of employment does not provide litigants the information needed to meet the specific allegations requirement. Further, it does not inform the three-judge panel, or the litigants, as to which facts and evidence informed the trial tribunal's decision. An order that merely recites the statutory language does no more to facilitate meaningful judicial review than an order that merely states claim denied. [7] ¶ 18 This Court has observed the frequent pattern of such boilerplate orders from the Workers' Compensation Court. That court is duty bound to insure that the three-judge panel, the final arbiter of questions of fact, is presented with an order from which the panel may meaningfully assess the legal and factual basis for the decision. The Workers' Compensation Court is required to make specific on-the-record findings of fact responsive to the issues formed by the evidence. All orders of the Workers' Compensation Court must meet the law's standards of a judicially reviewable decision. Jobe, 2001 OK 75, ¶ 12, 32 P.3d at 864. Thus, this rule applies to an order issued by the trial tribunal and also to one issued by the three-judge panel.