Patricia Robinson MacGuigan

In this workers' compensation case, a claimant employed at the Oklahoma State Penitentiary was injured during a 1985 riot, suffering a right arm injury with psychological overlay and later claiming additional issues including neck injury and post-traumatic stress syndrome. The trial court awarded benefits for 15% permanent partial disability due to the psychological condition, while finding no permanent partial disability to the arm or compensable neck injury. The appellate court upheld the award, holding that psychological injuries are compensable under the Workers' Compensation Act if accompanied by a physical injury arising from the same event, without requiring the psychological harm to flow directly from the physical injury or permanent disability to the physical injury. The court further determined that the claimant's medical evidence substantially complied with statutory requirements and the AMA Guides, providing competent support for the trial court's findings.

labor & employment

This case concerned a dispute under Oklahoma's Oil and Gas Drilling Surface Damages Act between an oil well operator and surface owners over compensation for drilling-related damages. The operator petitioned for appraisers, paid the $18,000 award from their report, and dismissed the action; the surface owners then sought confirmation of the award plus treble damages, interest, and attorney's fees. The trial court confirmed the award, denied treble damages and interest, and granted $4,200 in attorney's fees to the owners as the prevailing party. On appeal, the court reversed the attorney's fees award, holding that the statute authorizes such fees only after a jury trial demand and verdict, and no other statutes or doctrines supported fees; it affirmed the denial of treble damages because the Act requires a separate action showing willful entry without proper notice, which was not established here, and the denial of prejudgment interest because the Act provides no authority for it. The decision was affirmed in part and reversed in part.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

In Howell v. Ballard, Appellee Howell sued Appellants Tate, Ballard, and Tate-Page Enterprises to rescind a 1982 business investment transaction, alleging that the interest sold constituted an unregistered security under the Oklahoma Securities Act. The trial court granted summary judgment for Howell, ordering the return of his $35,000 investment plus interest, costs, and attorney fees. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the transaction qualified as an investment contract or risk-capital investment under the Act's definition because Howell invested money in a common enterprise with profit expectations dependent on others' management efforts. The court rejected the exemption claim under § 401(b)(9) due to the absence of a required restrictive legend on ownership documents and found that Tate and Ballard materially participated in the sale, making them jointly liable under § 408(b). Summary judgment was proper as no material facts were in dispute.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved homeowners who suffered damage from a sewer backup and filed tort claims against the City of Moore under the Governmental Tort Claims Act. The city council initially considered paying the claim but later denied it at a December 15, 1986 meeting; the homeowners then filed suit on June 15, 1987. The trial court dismissed the action as barred by the 180-day limitations period following denial of the claim, but the appellate court reversed. The court held that the limitations period began only upon the city's own denial (not an insurer's earlier action) and that the filing was timely because the 180 days from December 15 ran until the following Monday.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case arose from an oil field pipeline explosion in which three plaintiffs obtained a judgment against Producers Gas Company and Briggett, Inc., consisting of $500,000 in compensatory damages (joint and several) and separate punitive damages of $360,000 against Producers and $40,000 against Briggett. Briggett's insurer paid $120,000 to each plaintiff under a covenant not to execute, and the dispute concerned whether any portion of that payment could be credited against Briggett's punitive damages or had to be applied solely to the joint compensatory award. The trial court ruled that the entire payment must reduce the compensatory damages, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The court reasoned that Oklahoma public policy treats punitive damages as punishment rather than compensation, so insurance proceeds may not be used to satisfy them; it further held that the contribution statute and the terms of the covenant required the payment to be credited against the joint compensatory liability.

torts & liability

The case involved a 1982 merger agreement between Cities Service Company and Gulf Oil Corporation (through its subsidiary GOCA) for the acquisition of Cities via a tender offer at $63 per share followed by a merger, which Gulf terminated after FTC action blocked it. Cities sued to enforce the agreement on behalf of its shareholders as alleged third-party beneficiaries, while two shareholders (Bader and Friel) brought separate claims for breach of contract and fraud under the tender offer. The trial court dismissed these claims, and the appellate court affirmed, ruling that the merger agreement's explicit clause (Section 10.8) stated it conferred no rights or remedies on any other persons, barring third-party beneficiary status, and that the shareholders' claims arose from a separate transaction (the tender offer) not properly joined with Cities' merger-agreement claims under Oklahoma joinder rules.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved an insured plaintiff injured in a car accident by a tortfeasor whose liability policy had only $10,000 limits, while the plaintiff's damages were valued at $60,000; she sought full recovery directly from her own uninsured/underinsured motorist carrier without first pursuing the tortfeasor. The trial court awarded judgment against the UM carrier without crediting it for the uncollected $10,000, and the appellate court affirmed. The court reasoned that Oklahoma statutes, particularly 36 O.S. § 3636(C) and (E), define UM coverage to provide total indemnity without reduction for the tortfeasor's limits, allow direct suit against the UM carrier, and preserve the carrier's subrogation rights instead of an automatic set-off. Precedent such as Keel and Karlson supported pursuing UM benefits independently and avoiding dilution of coverage the insured paid for. The UM carrier was thus required to seek recovery from the tortfeasor via subrogation rather than deducting the amount from the plaintiff's award.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

In Friend v. Eaton Corp., plaintiffs brought a products liability suit against both the forklift manufacturer Yale and the distributor Medley, alleging strict liability without claiming any alteration by Medley. Medley demanded that Yale assume its defense and provide indemnity, but Yale refused; after Medley obtained summary judgment on its cross-claim for indemnity, the trial court awarded Medley attorney’s fees and costs. The appellate court affirmed the fee award, reasoning that manufacturer’s products liability doctrine requires upstream parties to bear all downstream costs, including defense expenses, so that distributors are made whole when they face claims solely as links in the distribution chain and have tendered defense to the manufacturer. The court adopted the indemnity rule from other jurisdictions allowing recovery of reasonable attorney’s fees when the indemnitee is free of independent fault and the indemnitor has declined to defend.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved Mazzio's Corp. challenging the Oklahoma Tax Commission's assessment of additional franchise taxes, interest, and penalties for fiscal years 1984 through 1986. The Commission had reinterpreted 68 O.S.1981 § 1209 to require inclusion of the full amount of notes or mortgages in a taxpayer's capital base if any portion matured more than three years after issuance, reversing its prior practice of including only amounts actually due beyond three years. The court reversed the Commission's order denying the taxpayer's protest. It reasoned that the agency's long-standing construction of the statute, applied consistently for decades without legislative disapproval, was entitled to deference absent cogent reasons for change, and that any doubt in tax statutes must be resolved in favor of the taxpayer.

taxesbusiness & regulatory

This case involved a property dispute in which a building and driveway constructed on one party's land inadvertently encroached on an adjoining lot owned by the appellant. After failed settlement attempts, the appellant blocked access and sought a mandatory injunction to remove the encroachment, while the appellees sought damages and injunctive relief. The trial court denied the mandatory injunction, granted the appellees easements for the encroaching structure, maintenance, and light/air access, and awarded the appellant $3,180 in damages; it also found the appellant in indirect contempt for later constructing a tall structure that interfered with the easements and ordered restitution of $4,105.50 plus a security bond. On appeal, the court affirmed these rulings, holding that the Oklahoma Constitution does not bar equitable remedies like damages in lieu of injunction, that equity permitted balancing hardships to deny removal, and that the contempt was properly addressed through restitution under the applicable statutes rather than imprisonment. The decisions rested on principles of equity, the adequacy of legal remedies, and statutory authority for enforcing injunctions.

propertyprocedure

The case involved Carlton Southwest, Inc., which purchased the assets and inventory of Premier Pontiac, a car dealership that had collected but failed to remit sales taxes for June and early July 1987. When Carlton applied for a new sales tax permit, the Oklahoma Tax Commission refused issuance under 68 O.S.Supp.1986 § 1364(F) until the prior owner's delinquent taxes were paid, leading Carlton to pay approximately $5,000 and then seek a refund. The court affirmed the Commission's denial of the refund, holding that the transaction constituted the purchase of an on-going business and that the statute required settlement of all tax claims before a permit could be issued to the purchaser. The court further ruled that compliance with bulk transfer provisions under the UCC did not override the specific tax statute, and that the Commission could estimate the tax amount based on the seller's prior filings without conducting a new audit.

taxesbusiness & regulatory

The case involved Janet Guthrie's claim for workers' compensation benefits against Tyson Foods for an injury to her left hand and wrist caused by repetitive trauma from handling chickens on an assembly line during her three-month employment there. The trial court found that Guthrie had sustained a compensable accidental injury arising out of her employment with Tyson and awarded temporary total disability benefits. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the award, holding that competent evidence supported the trial court's order, including Guthrie's uncontradicted testimony that her subsequent jobs did not cause or aggravate the injury and medical reports linking the condition to her work at Tyson. The court also granted Guthrie attorney fees for the appeal after determining it lacked merit.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involved an employee who was injured on the job, filed a workers' compensation claim, returned to work, and was later terminated after being counseled for substandard production; he sued his employer for retaliatory discharge under workers' compensation statutes and for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The trial court granted summary judgment to the employer, finding the employee was precluded by an unappealed prior administrative denial of unemployment benefits that determined he was discharged for misconduct. The appellate court reversed in part, holding that the district court has exclusive jurisdiction over the retaliatory discharge claim, that the unemployment commission's factfinding does not have preclusive effect because the remedies are collateral and multiple motives for discharge are possible, and that a factual dispute existed regarding retaliatory motivation based on evidence including a coworker's statement. The court affirmed summary judgment on the emotional distress claim, ruling that the employer's conduct did not meet the legal threshold of being beyond all bounds of decency as a matter of law.

labor & employmentproceduretorts & liability