Court Opinion

ID: 9820337
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 07:07:46.358068+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:38:39.103467
License: Public Domain

COMBS, V.C.J.,
concurring specially.
1 1 I concur with the majority's interpretation of the law, and consequently the result in this cause. However, I write separately to emphasize the injustice created when a worker is injured in the course of their employment and although a remedy exists, recovery of a judgment and compensation for his loss do not exist because of the employer's noncompliance with the requirements of the Workers' Compensation system to have workers' compensation coverage which would benefit an injured worker.
12 The terms of the often—mentloned Grand Bargain provided that in exchange for relinquishing the ability to Sue for damages stemming from work-related injuries, employers would accept no-fault Hability and workers would be provided compensation for loss of earning capacity as a result of work-related accidents. See Evans & Associates Utility Services v. Espinosa, 2011 OK 81, T 14, 264 P.3d 1190. As the majority correctly states, Workers' Compensation is the exclusive remedy for work related accidents sustained during the course and scope of a worker's employment. - Price v. Howard, 2010 OK 26, "[ 8, 236 P.8d 82.
13 The right to a remedy for recognized wrongs is a core principle of Oklahoma law. Okla. Const. Art. 2, § 6. provides:
[the courts of justice of the state shall be open to every person, and speedy and certain remedy afforded for every wrong and for every injury to person, property, or reputation; ' and right and justice shall be administered without sale, demal delay, or prejudice.
This Court has previously recognized that Okla. Const. Art. 2, $ 6 does not promise a remedy for every complamt Zeier v. Fim-mer, Inc., 2006 OK 98, 1 31, 152 P 8d 861; S%. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Getty Oil Co., 1989 OK 139, 116, 782 P.2d 915.1 However, 'Okla. Const, Art. 2, § 6 does require that complainants 'must be given access to the courts if they have suffered wrongs rec-og'rilzed in the law, functioning essefitially. to protect access to a remedy for violations of substantive rights which have vested. See Getty Oil Co., 1989 OK 139 [ 16, 782 P.2d 915.
T4 Joseph Parker now ﬁnds himself in a position where he has suffered a wrong ree-ognized by the Legislature. He has a vested statutory right to a remedy under the Workers' Compensation statutes, a right affirmed by the courts, However, because the law does not contemplate piercing the corporate veil in cases where an insolvent or dissolved employer corporation failed to comply with the provisions of the Workers' Compensatlon statutes, J oseph Parker has a remedy but no recovery. ' This result, though compelled by the long-standing law of corporations, defies the spirit of the Grand Bargain and the principle that there should always be an accessible remedy - for legally-recognized wrongs. '

. "This Court has unequivocally stated that 'it is within the power of the Legislature to modify or abolish an old right under common law as long as no vested right is disturbed.'" Getty Oil Co., 1989 OK 139, 114, 782 P.2d 915 (quoting Loyal Order of Moose, Lodge 1785 v. Cavanéess, 1977 OK 70, 1 8, 563 P.2d 143).