Opinion ID: 2631037
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: the order in this matter

Text: ¶ 19 The order memorializing the decision in this matter does not provide the necessary elements for meaningful judicial review. The transcript of the proceedings before the trial tribunal reveals that Employer attacked the claim for compensation on two bases, credibility and causation. ¶ 20 The trial tribunal may have believed that Claimant's testimony was simply not true and that no injury occurred. That would have been within its right because the Workers' Compensation Court is the sole arbiter of [the] credibility of witness[es] and [the] weight given their testimony. Pearl v. Associated Milk Producers, Inc., 1978 OK 105, ¶ 11, 581 P.2d 894, 896. That court may refuse to give credence to any portion of the evidence which in its opinion is not entitled to credence. Bittman v. Boardman Co., 1977 OK 32, ¶ 4, 560 P.2d 967, 969. Had credence of Claimant's testimony been the only attack directed at the claim, the order in this matter might not have been too vague or indefinite for meaningful judicial review. Employer, however, also raised Claimant's prior adjudicated work-related injury and injuries sustained since that time in an apparent attempt to demonstrate that if there was an injury, it did not arise out of Claimant's employment. [8] Neither the order of the trial tribunal, the appellate record, nor the transcript of proceedings before the trial tribunal give any indication of the basis for denial of the claim. ¶ 21 The trial tribunal was obligated to make specific findings as to the basis for its decision. Only then could a three-judge panel review meaningfully the tribunal's factual determinations and legal conclusions. On remand the Workers' Compensation Court is directed to memorialize its decision in an order that complies with this opinion. CERTIORARI PREVIOUSLY GRANTED; OPINION OF COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS VACATED; ORDER OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION COURT VACATED; CAUSE REMANDED TO WORKERS' COMPENSATION COURT FOR PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION CONCUR: WINCHESTER, C.J., EDMONDSON, V.C.J., OPALA, KAUGER, WATT, COLBERT, JJ. DISSENT: LAVENDER, HARGRAVE, TAYLOR, JJ. TAYLOR, J. Dissenting: I would affirm the trial judge's decision to deny this claim. The trial judge heard all of the evidence and legal arguments and then determined all of the factual and legal issues in favor of the employer. The trial judge specifically found that the employee did not sustain an accidental personal injury arising out of and in the course of claimant's employment . . . The employee simply failed to prove his case. The employee's credibility was clearly and properly at issue. The trial judge's Order was clear and definite and it should be affirmed. There is no need for a remand.