OWENS ILLINOIS, INC. v. YANDELL

OWENS ILLINOIS, INC. v. YANDELL
2008 OK CIV APP 72
190 P.3d 1206
Case Number: 105158
Decided: 07/21/2008
Mandate Issued: 08/15/2008
DIVISION IV
THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, DIVISION IV

OWENS ILLINOIS, INC. and OWN RISK #16542, Petitioners,
v.
JOEL C. YANDELL, and THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION COURT, Respondents.

PROCEEDING TO REVIEW AN ORDER OF A THREE-JUDGE PANEL OF
THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION COURT

HONORABLE CHERRI FARRAR, TRIAL JUDGE

REMANDED

James B. Cassody, Michael D. Gilliard, McGIVERN, GILLIARD & CURTHOYS, Tulsa, Oklahoma, for Petitioners
James E. Lowell, Tulsa, Oklahoma, for Respondents

DEBORAH B. BARNES, JUDGE:

¶

FACTS

¶

¶

¶

¶

¶

¶

¶

¶

ANALYSIS

¶

"Any party who feels that a fair and impartial trial or other hearing cannot be received from the trial judge to whom the matter is assigned, shall make written motion requesting such judge to withdraw from the case. That application need not set forth specific reasons. The trial judge may withdraw without further proceeding and immediately refer the matter to the presiding judge for reassignment.

Any party aggrieved by an order of a trial judge who refused to grant a written request to disqualify, or transfer a claim to the presiding Judge for reassignment, may seek corrective relief by invoking the appellate jurisdiction of the three-judge review panel in the manner and within the time provided by 85 O.S., Section 3.6(A).

The Supreme Court will not entertain an original proceeding to disqualify a trial judge of the Workers' Compensation Court or direct such judge to transfer a claim to the presiding judge of that court for reassignment unless it is shown that the relief sought by the petitioner was previously denied by the three-judge review panel." (Emphasis added.)

¶

CONCLUSION

¶

¶13 REMANDED.

RAPP, C.J., and GABBARD, P.J., concur.

FOOTNOTES

1 Employer failed to brief this issue and therefore has waived its right to have it considered on appeal. Rule 1.11(k)(1), Okla. Sup. Ct. Rules, 12 O.S.2001, Ch. 15, App. 1.

2 On remand, if the en banc panel finds the trial judge should have recused herself, the trial judge's previous order is voidable. See Pierce v. Pierce, 2001 OK 97, ¶ 23, 39 P.3d 791, 800. Because this case is remanded to correct an oversight of the en banc panel, in fairness to the parties, the panel should proceed on this matter with all due speed.