 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Gladstone v. Bartlesville Independent School District No. 303/18/2003
__ P.3d __
ON CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS, DIV. II
THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS' OPINION IS VACATED AND THE TRIAL COURT'S SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED
The dispositive issue on certiorari is whether the terms of §155(14) of the Governmental Tort Claims Act [GTCA] - which exclude from state tort liability claims for death (or bodily injury) from an on-the-job injury covered by workers' compensation but extend government's tort accountability to claims by persons with access to collateral sources of indemnity other than workers' compensation (and employer's liability) -violate (1) the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution and the equal treatment notions protected by the state constitution and (2) the Due Process Clauses in both the Oklahoma and the U.S. Constitutions? We answer in the negative.
I. THE ANATOMY OF LITIGATION
Martin John Gladstone [decedent] was killed when struck by a school bus driven by an employee of the Bartlesville Independent School District No. 30 [District]. Decedent's widow, Elaine Desousa Gladstone [Gladstone or widow], received the statutory workers' compensation death benefits from the decedent's employer, Phillips Petroleum Company. Gladstone then brought a wrongful death action against District. The trial court gave summary judgment to District. The latter's quest for summary relief stood rested on § 155(14) of the GTCA [subdiv. 14], whose terms shield the state or political subdivision from liability for "any loss to any person covered by any workers' compensation act." Finding the facts to be undisputed (and inferentially not supportive of opposite inferences), the trial court concluded (a) the case is governed by Childs v. State of Oklahoma and Smith v. State Dept. of Transportation as well as by Art. 23 § 7, Okl.Const., (b) there is a rational basis for the governing legislation, (c) no fundamental right of the plaintiff is violated and (d) the GTCA immunizes District from liability because the plaintiff's loss is protected by workers' compensation coverage.
The Court of Civil Appeals [COCA] affirmed, noting that Gladstone's equal protection challenge stands rejected by extant jurisprudence. While it viewed Gladstone's arguments as both rational and persuasive, the appellate court declined her invitation to follow Minnesota authority and to strike down subdiv. 14 as constitutionally infirm.
Although we reach today the same conclusion as COCA, we vacate that court's opinion to settle the point of law by a precedential pronouncement.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
The material facts in this cause are undisputed and support but a single inference in favor of the movant. The issues tendered on certiorari call solely for this court's resolution of legal questions. Review of contested issues of law is governed by a de novo standard. In its re-examination of a trial court's legal rulings an appellate court exercises plenary, independent and nondeferential authority.
III. CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE SUBDIV. 14 EXEMPTION
Gladstone asserts that the subdiv. 14 contravenes the (a) Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amend., U.S. Const., as well as the equal treatment notions protected by the state constitution and (b) the Due Process Clauses of both the Oklahoma and the U.S. Constitutions.
A. Equal Protection Challenge
Gladstone argues that subdiv. 14 violates the equal protection guarantee because there is no rational basis for a classification that impermissibly excludes from state tort liability all claims for on-the-job bodily injuries (or death) which are covered by compensation but not t
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Oklahoma Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|