Court Opinion

ID: 9627144
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 08:35:58.806087+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:06:40.262218
License: Public Domain

SIMMS, Justice,
dissenting:
I must respectfully dissent. The majority finds there is insufficient evidence upon which the Workers’ Compensation Court may base either an award or a denial of award, and remands this cause under the authority of Special Indent. Fund v. Stockton, Okl., 653 P.2d 194 (1982). Stockton addresses two questions of first impression involving the Workers’ Compensation Act of 1977. We therein held that substantial compliance with Rule 20 is mandatory and Stockton was remanded because fundamental fairness required we give the parties an opportunity to comport with newly announced principles of law.
*1082Stockton, in my view, did not forever excuse the fundamental rule of jurisprudence and particularly Oklahoma Workers’ Compensation procedure that the burden of proof in workers’ compensation cases rests upon claimant seeking benefits to establish all the elements of his claim. Armco, Inc. v. Holcomb, Okl., 694 P.2d 937 (1985), and cases therein cited. Because there is an absolute failure of proof in this case for reasons the parties should have known since 1982, I would affirm the trial court even though this Court today promulgates new law in Part II of its opinion.
I am authorized to state that Chief Justice Hargrave and Vice Chief Justice Opala join with me in the views expressed herein.