Dispositions Other Than By Published Opinion | March 20, 2024
Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals
Division I
Division II
120,958 — Satera Washington, as Special Administrator for the Estate of Christopher Wortham, Jr., Plaintiff/Appellee, vs. Christopher Wortham, Sr., Appellant, and Diversified Construction of Oklahoma, Inc., Defendant. Appeal from Order of the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Don Andrews, Trial Judge. Plaintiff Satera Washington, acting in her capacity as special representative of the estate of her adult son, Christopher Wortham, Jr. (Decedent), brought this action to recover damages for his alleged wrongful death. Decedent’s father, Christopher Wortham, Sr. (Wortham) appeals from the district court’s order distributing proceeds from settlement of the action, claiming that the district court erred in denying him his statutory share of the funds distributed. Wortham also appeals the order denying his motion to reconsider and/or for rehearing of that order. The district court did not err as a matter of law in denying Wortham a share of the settlement proceeds attributable to the Decedent’s mental pain and anguish. All of those funds were required by law to be distributed to the Decedent’s son. Further, competent evidence in the record supports the court’s distribution order and apportionment of the wrongful death settlement proceeds for grief and loss of companionship to Washington. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Wortham’s motion to reconsider. We affirm the appealed orders. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division II by FISCHER, J.; BARNES, C.J., concurs, and WISEMAN, P.J., concurs in result. March 19, 2024
Division III
121,137 – Global Core Stillwater, L.L.C., d/b/a LaQuinta Inn and Employers Preferred Insurance Company, Petitioners, v. Raymond Miller and the Workers’ Compensation Commission, Respondents. Proceeding to review an order of a three-judge panel of the workers compensation commission. Appellant, Global Core Stillwater, L.L.C. (d/b/a LaQuinta Inn), seeks review of the Workers’ Compensation Commission Panel en banc (Panel) order affirming in part, reversing in part, vacating in part and remanding the decision of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), wherein the ALJ found the Claimant/Appellee, Raymond Miller, did not sustain compensable injuries and his employment was not the major cause of Miller’s condition. Finding the Commission Panel acted in excess of its statutory authority, 85A O.S. Supp.2019 §78(C)(2), the order of the Workers’ Compensation Commission Panel en banc is REVERSED. Opinion by GOREE, J.; MITCHELL, P.J., and DOWNING, J., concur. March 15, 2024
121,365 – Tony R. Helsley, Petitioner, v. Multiple Injury Trust Fund, Respondent. Proceeding to review an order of a three-judge panel of the Workers’ Compensation Commission. Petitioner, Tony Helsley, appeals an order of the Workers’ Compensation Commission affirming an order of the Administrative Law Judge that denied his claim for permanent total disability against the multiple injury trust fund. There was no error in the Commission’s determination that Claimant’s combined disabilities did not constitute permanent total disability considering that he had the capacity to earn wages in employment for which he could become suited by vocational rehabilitation. AFFIRMED. Opinion by GOREE, J.; MITCHELL, P.J., and DOWNING, J., concur. March 15, 2024
121,375 – Ferrarotto Investments, LLC, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Tina Cross and William Cross, Defendants/Appellees. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Tammy Bruce, Trial Judge. This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of the Appellees, Tina and William Cross (Tenants) in small claims court. Tenants filed a response to the petition in error but did not file an answer brief. The appellate record consists of the Small Claims Affidavit, the Eviction Notice, and the Judgment. The trial was not transcribed. Because there is no record substantiating the arguments Appellant, Ferrarotto Investments, LLC (Landlord) makes, the trial court’s decision is AFFIRMED. Opinion by DOWNING, J.; MITCHELL, P.J., and GOREE, J., concur. March 15, 2024
121,390 – Jody A. French, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Marvin Terrapin, Defendant/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Wagoner County, Oklahoma. Honorable John Luton, Trial Judge. Petitioner/Appellee, Jody French, was granted a final protective order on grounds she was stalked by her neighbor, Defendant/Appellant, Marvin Terrapin. The order is reversed because an answer brief was not filed and the brief-in-chief is reasonably supportive of the allegations of error. Opinion by GOREE, J.; MITCHELL, P.J., and DOWNING, J., concur. March 15, 2024
Division IV
121,147 – Micah Hobson, Plaintiff/Appellee, vs. State of Oklahoma ex rel. Department of Public Safety, Defendant/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Cleveland County, Hon. Jeff Virgin, Trial Judge. State of Oklahoma ex rel. Department of Public Safety (State) appeals a district court order finding Service Oklahoma did not have standing to appear and present evidence to defend against the driver’s license revocation of plaintiff, Micah Hobson, and, therefore, setting aside the revocation of Hobson’s driver’s license. Based on the Supreme Court’s analysis and finding in Herrera-Chacon v. State of Oklahoma, ex rel. Service Oklahoma, 2023 OK 52, ___P.3d ___ (not yet released for publication), we find Service Oklahoma has standing to appear on behalf of the State in this driver’s license revocation action. The district court’s Order on Plaintiff’s Petition is reversed and remanded for further proceedings. REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by HUBER, P.J.; HIXON, J., and BLACKWELL, J., concur. March 15, 2024
120,809 — Harvey David Cramer, Jr., Plaintiff/Appellant, vs. Todd Arthur Cramer, individually and as Trustee of The Harve D. Cramer 2006 Revocable Trust, Defendant/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. K. Nikki Kirkpatrick, Trial Judge. Plaintiff Harvey David Cramer, Jr. appeals an order adjudicating his application for an attorney’s fee and costs pursuant to 60 O.S.2022, § 175.57(D). Plaintiff contends the trial court erred by failing to award all requested fees and costs. The trial court’s decision in this case is clear, comprehensive, well-reasoned, and fully supported by competent evidence. The trial court’s findings of fact are not against the clear weight of the evidence, and its conclusions of law are correct and more than adequately explained in its decision. Finding no reversible error, we affirm the trial court’s order pursuant to Rule 1.202(b) & (d). AFFIRMED UNDER RULE 1.202(b) & (d). Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by HIXON, J.; HUBER, P.J., and BLACKWELL, J., concur. March 14, 2024