Court Opinion

ID: 9583140
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:35:10.045976+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:37:21.542986
License: Public Domain

KAUGER, Justice,
dissenting:
Because the Legislature is constitutionally precluded from delegating its legislative duties to private parties,1 I dissent from the majority’s opinion which gives efficacy to the American Medical Association’s “Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment” (AMA Guides).
This Court is required by 12 O.S.1981 § 2201 to take judicial notice of the constitution.2 Courts are required to consider all applicable constitutional, statutory, and de-*598cisional law applicable to a cause.3 Since this Court’s decision in 1941 in First Nat’l Bank v. Southland Prod. Co., 189 Okl. 9, 112 P.2d 1087, 1098-99 (1941), we have recognized the importance of considering a constitutional question for the first time on appeal if the public welfare and interest so require:
“Thus where questions of public policy or widespread public interest are involved an appellate court may review a cause on a theory not presented in the trial tribunal. Magnolia Pet. Co. v. State, 175 Okl. 11, 52 P.2d 81; Shaffer Oil & Ref. Co. v. County Treasurer of Creek County, 175 Okl. 6, 52 P.2d 76. See also 3 AmJur. 35. The wisdom of this exemption is, we think, self-evident, for the rule itself is one of practice and designed to limit the scope of inquiry on appeal'strictly to the controversy as it was presented to the lower tribunal. It is fair to the parties, however, when the question is of such a nature that the present welfare of the people at large, or a substantial portion thereof, is involved that the consideration of their rights merits a departure from the general rule and authorizes the court in its discretion to direct its attention to the general welfare, rather than the interests of the parties to the immediate cause.”
The repeated presentation of the applicability of the AMA Guides in workers’ compensation causes and the fact that employers as well as employees rely upon the workers’ compensation system for protection for on-the-job injuries warrants consideration of the constitutional question presented. Additionally, at least two recent opinions indicate that the issue is a recurring one—Dosh v. TRW/REDA Pump, 810 P.2d 1283, 1284 (Okla.1991) and Branstetter v. TRW/REDA Pump, 809 P.2d 1305, 1310 (Concurring in result opinion by Opala, C.J.).

DELEGATION OF THE AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE PERMANENT IMPAIRMENT PURSUANT TO 85 O.SSUPP.im § 3(11) TO A PRIVATE ENTITY IS AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL DELEGATION OF THE LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY.

The Legislature enacted the Workers’ Compensation Act, 85 O.S.1981 § 1 et seq., to provide a comprehensive system of compensation for workers, employed by participating employers, who are injured in the course of their employment.4 It replaced the often large but erratic damage awards available through common law negligence actions with a relatively quick and predictable statutorily set recovery for injuries sustained in the course of employment without regard to fault.5 Pursuant to 85 O.S.Supp. 1990 § 3(H),6 a medical report evaluating *599permanent impairment must comply with the AMA Guides. Any deviation from the AMA Guides must be specifically provided for by the AMA Guides.
The governmental powers are allocated among three branches of government — the legislative, the executive, and the judicial.7 The authority of each of the three branches must be jealously guarded to prevent centralization of power in any one department. It has long been recognized that the Legislature may not delegate authority primarily legislative in character.8 Delegation of the legislative power to private entities is forbidden.9
Section 3(11) vests in a purely private organization, the American Medical Association, the unbridled authority to set standards for permanent impairment which govern an employee’s right to collect compensation for on-the-job injuries. This delegation is made without guides, restrictions or standards. It has resulted in the requiring of often unnecessary but expensive tests which increase the cost of the system, the cost of workers’ compensation insurance, the cost of doing business, and the cost of products to the ultimate consumers. The Legislature may not delegate the legislative power to a privately controlled national organization.10 Section 3(11) is unconstitutional because it vests the American Medical Association with the authority to determine the standards for the evaluation of permanent impairment — a power reserved to the Legislature acting in its law making capacity.

. American Home Prod. Corp. v. Homsey, 361 P.2d 297, 301 (Okla.1961); Potter v. State, 509 P.2d 933, 935 (Okla.Ct.Crim.App.1973). The Okla. Const, art. 4, § 1 provides:
“The powers of the government of the State of Oklahoma shall be divided into three separate departments: The Legislative, Executive, and Judicial; and except as provided in this Constitution, the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial departments of government shall be separate and distinct, and neither shall exercise the powers properly belonging to either of the others.”
The Okla. Const, art. 5, § 1 provides in pertinent part:
“The Legislative authority of the State shall be vested in a Legislature, consisting of a Senate and a House of Representatives...”

. Title 12 O.S.1981 § 2201 provides in pertinent part:
"A. Judicial notice shall be taken by the court of the common law, constitutions and *598public statutes in force in every state, territory, and jurisdiction of the United States....”

. See, Eason Oil Co. v. Uhls, 518 P.2d 50-51 (Okla.1974).

. Title 85 O.S.Supp.1985 § 11 provides in pertinent part:
"Every employer subject to the provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Act shall pay, or provide as required by the Workers’ Compensation Act, Compensation according to the schedules of the Workers’ Compensation Act for the disability or death of his employee resulting from an accidental personal injury sustained by the employee arising out of and in the course of his employment, without regard to fault as a cause of such injury ...”

. Miller v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 550 P.2d 1330, 1334 (Okla.1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 890, 97 S.Ct. 247, 50 L.Ed.2d 173 (1976).

. Title 85 O.S.Supp.1990 § 3 provides in pertinent part:
"As used in the Workers’ Compensation Act: ... (11) ‘Permanent impairment’ means any anatomical or functional abnormality or loss after reasonable medical treatment has been achieved, which abnormality or loss the physician considers to be capable of being evaluated at the time the rating is made. Except as otherwise provided herein, any examining physician shall only evaluate impairment in accordance with the latest publication of the American Medical Association’s ‘Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment’ in effect at the time of the incident for which compensation is sought. However, revisions to the guides made by the American Medical Association which are published after January 1, 1989 shall be operative one hundred twenty (120) days after the last day of the month of publication. The examining physician shall not follow the guides based on race or ethnic origin, but otherwise shall not deviate from said guides except as may be specifically provided for in the guides. These officially adopted guides shall be the exclusive basis for testimony and conclusions with regard to permanent impairment with the exception of *599paragraph 3 of Section 22 of this title, relating to scheduled member injury or loss; and impairment, including pain or loss of strength, may be awarded with respect to those injuries or areas of the body not specifically covered by said guides_”
Section 3(11) has been revised since the instant cause was filed. However, the controlling statute, 85 O.S.Supp.1986 § 3(11) also requires evaluations in accordance with the American Medical Association "Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment”.

. The Okla. Const, art. 4, § 1, see note 1, supra.

. Sterling Refining Co. v. Walker, 165 Okl. 45, 25 P.2d 312, 318 (1933); Annot., "Permissible Limits of Delegation of Legislative Power,” 79 L.Ed. 474, 476 (1935). Only those administrative functions incidental to the implementation of the legislative intent may be vested in other bodies. These functions must be accompanied by well-defined limits prescribed by the Legislature. Herrin v. Arnold, 183 Okl. 392, 82 P.2d 977, 982, 119 A.L.R. 1471, 1479 (1938); Sterling Refining Co. v. Walker, see this note, supra; Potter v. State, see note 1 at 934, supra. The Workers’ Compensation Act provides no limits or parameters to the medical profession for inclusion or direction in the promulgation of the AMA Guides.

. American Home Prod. Corp. v. Homsey, see note 1; Potter v. State, see note 1, supra; Annot., "Delegation of Legislative Power to Nongovernmental Agencies as Regards Prices, Wages, and Hours,” 3 A.L.R.2d 188, 191 (1949). In Homsey, we struck down as an unlawful delegation of legislative power the Oklahoma Fair Trade Act, 78 O.S.1951 § 41 et seq., because it delegated to private persons the right to prescribe a rule governing conduct for the future which bound nonconsenting parties. In Potter, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals found that the Legislature’s delegation to a private entity of the right to determine what motion pictures could be distributed in Oklahoma was an unconstitutional delegation of the legislative authority.

. Potter v. State, see note 1, supra.