MULTIPLE INJURY TRUST FUND v. CELLINO

2015 OK 12

Summary: Cellino was injured in 1997 and re-injured in 2000. In both instances he sought and was awarded workers compensation.  In 2003, after both awards were finalized, Cellino moved for payment of principal and post-award interest on the judgments. Also in 2003 Cellino sought certification for a class action award on behalf of all judgment recipients who had not been paid interest on benefits paid from the Multiple Injury Trust Fund after May 9, 1996. From 2003 through 2009 no further documents were filed with the trial court. On July 29, 2009 Cellino filed a motion to compel discovery response. The Multiple Injury Trust Fund answered the discovery requests on August 10, 2009 then filed for a motion of summary judgment on August 14, 2009. The motion for summary judgment argued that pursuant to the then in force 85 O.S. §43(B) which provides in relevant part: "...unless the claimant shall in good faith request a hearing and final determination thereon within five (5) years from the date of filing thereof or within five (5) years from the date of last payment of compensation or wages in lieu thereof, same shall be barred as the basis of any claim for compensation... ."

Legal Issue: The Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled narrowly on the issue of whether Cellino's motion to certify a class action was barred under 85 O.S. §45(B). Cellino argued that pending litigation in the Dean matter effectively suspended this matter until April 8, 2009 and that the failure of the Respondent to answer discovery for six years should toll the time limit on the claim. The Court ruled that Cellino's complete lack of prosecution of this matter for a period of six years invoked the terms of the statute. Despite the problems alleged by Cellino, the absolute failure to make any good faith attempt to move the case forward for the six year period in question resulted in the claim being barred.

Discussion: Prior to February 1, 2014 Oklahoma's worker's compensation was handled through a special court set up for that purpose. A political debate arose regarding whether this system was needlessly complicated and excessively expensive resulting in economic harm. The decision was made to scrap the old worker's compensation court and instituted the Worker's Compensation Commission. Under the new legislation worker's compensation claims are much less adversarial and streamlined with the goals of increasing speed of claim processing and reducing insurance and other costs. The policy debate continues regarding whether this will have the effect of removing delays and excesses or whether this will have the effect of steamrolling injured workers and undervaluing their claims. Meanwhile, claims initiated prior to February 1, 2014 are handled by the Worker's Compensation Court of Existing Claims.

This case speaks only to the worker's compensation laws that existed prior to February 1, 2014. As such, there is limited applicability of this case to future issues. However, it is interesting to note that in a very brief concurring opinion Justice Taylor, with Justice Combs joining, noted that he would hold that class action lawsuits were not available in worker's compensation.

STATE ex rel. HARRIS v. 2011 HONDA

2015 OK 11

Summary: Craig and Pam Bickle purchased a 2011 Honda Accord for their daughter Ashley Bickle. The Honda was titled in the name of "Craige Bickle or Pam Bickle or Ashley Bickle". The Honda was pulled over by the Tulsa police department. Ashley Bickle was a passenger in the car and an unrelated third-party was driving. The police noticed the odor of marijuana and saw some marijuana in plain sight. The driver and Ashley Bickle were arrested and police found approximately one-half pound of marijuana and $804 in the car. The Tulsa police department sought to take ownership of the car through forfeiture pursuant to 63 O.S. §2-501 et seq. On a motion for summary judgment the Tulsa County Court ruled that Craig and Pam Bickle were "innocent owners" of the car, and that as such their interest in the car could not be forfeited. The district attorney for Tulsa County appealed this ruling. The Oklahoma Supreme Court affirmed the Tulsa County court.

Legal Issues: The statutory authority for forfeiture of vehicles used in drug trafficking explicitly exempts vehicles from forfeiture if the owner of the vehicle has no knowledge of the illegal activity. Specifically, 63 O.S. §2-503(A)(4)(b) states: 

b. no conveyance shall be forfeited under the provisions of this section by reason of any act or omission established by the owner thereof to have been committed or omitted without the knowledge or consent of such owner, and if the act is committed by any person other than such owner the owner shall establish further that the conveyance was unlawfully in the possession of a person other than the owner in violation of the criminal laws of the United States, or of any state. . . .

The statute contemplates uniformity of knowledge among the various owner(s) of the vehicle in question. In the present case one of the title owners, Ashley Bickle, was present in the vehicle at the time of the arrest and was clearly knowledgeable of its illegal use. The Tulsa County District court found that Craig and Pam Bickle were owners of record and that they had no knowledge of the illegal use of the car, and that as such they were "innocent owners" regardless of the fact that Ashley Bickle, also listed on the title as an owner, was not an "innocent owner".

The Oklahoma Supreme Court noted that the law abhors forfeitures, meaning that statutes that call for forfeiture of a party's rights are construed narrowly. The Court further ruled that the legislature intended that no innocent owner should have their ownership forfeited by the actions of other persons. While the statute did not explicitly state that in a case of mixed innocence among joint owners, the Court ruled that an innocent co-owner cannot have their ownership rights forfeited by the actions of another party.

Discussion: Various law enforcement agencies use forfeiture of property as a tool to supplement their funding. This ruling will be of significance to future cases making it easier for innocent co-owners to defend their property rights when a co-owner uses the jointly owned property in an illegal manner.

SUSPENSION OF CERTIFICATES OF CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS

2015 OK 10

Summary: This is an administrative matter that suspends the certificates of those Court Certified Shorthand Reporters (also known as Court Reporters) for failure to meet continuing education requirements, to pay fees, or both.

Discussion: Because the status of a reporter's certificate is a public matter all such rulings are published. This is an administrative action regarding the Court’s governance of the operations of the Oklahoma court system.

IN THE MATTER OF THE REINSTATEMENT OF KERR

2015 OK 9

Summary: Robert Samuel Kerr, IV, is readmitted into the Oklahoma Bar Association after successfully completing a suspension of two years and one day. On July 30, 2010, Kerr was charged with one felony count of offering a bribe to a police officer to not attend a hearing on the suspension of a client's driver's license. In April 2012 the charge was reduced to one count of obstruction of a police officer and Kerr pled guilty to that charge under a deferred plea sentencing agreement. In 2012 OK 108 the Oklahoma Supreme Court reviewed the matter and suspended Kerr's license to practice law for a period of two years and one day. Kerr successfully completed his parole period and acted to help lawyers avoid the pitfalls that led to his suspension. Kerr applied for readmission after the two years and a day had passed and a hearing was held before the Oklahoma Bar Association's disciplinary tribunal. The tribunal unanimously recommended that Kerr be reinstated. Upon a de novo review of the tribunal's recommendation the Oklahoma Supreme Court readmitted Kerr.

Legal Issues: The Oklahoma Supreme Court is directly responsible for the accreditation of attorneys in the state of Oklahoma. This is accomplished through the Oklahoma Bar Association and its enforcement of the Oklahoma Rules for Professional Conduct for Attorneys ("ORPC").  If an attorney seeks readmission after a suspension of more than two years, or after disbarment, the Oklahoma Bar Association investigates as outlined in the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings ("RGDP"). 

Because the change of status of an attorney from 'suspended' to 'good standing' is of public significance, all attorney licensure matters are published, regardless of whether a novel legal question is involved. 

An applicant for readmission must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the applicant will conform to the high standards expected of a member of the Oklahoma Bar Association. The applicant must present stronger proof of qualifications than a first-time applicant for the bar.

Reviewing the hearing before the tribunal, the Court determined that Kerr met his burden of showing by clear and convincing evidence: 1) stronger proof of his present moral fitness to practice law than would a first-time applicant for admission; 2) Kerr's consciousness of his wrongdoing and the disrepute his wrongdoing brought upon the profession; and, 3) that the severity of the prior conduct did not prohibit readmission.

In particular, the Court examined Kerr's actions since his suspension and found that he had made significant activity in expressing his remorse, working consistently and with integrity as a landman in the oil and gas business, and counseling young lawyers to avoid the pitfalls that led to his difficulties.

Discussion: The Court recognizes that people can experience difficulties and return from them stronger than before. Lawyers are people like any other and not immune to the host of human frailties that beset every person. Similarly, lawyers can rebound from these difficulties stronger than before. The Court's policing of the bar includes an opportunity for those who will take it to turn weaknesses and mistakes into strengths and triumphs.