# Parks v. Norman Municipal Hospital

> Supreme Court of Oklahoma · July 24, 1984 · 684 P.2d 548

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9629060

## Case

- **Full name:** Karen Ann PARKS, Petitioner, v. NORMAN MUNICIPAL HOSPITAL, an Own Risk Insurer, and the Workers’ Compensation Court of the State of Oklahoma, Respondents
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Oklahoma
- **Decided:** July 24, 1984
- **Citations:** 684 P.2d 548; 1984 OK 53; 1984 Okla. LEXIS 166
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Wilson
- **Judges:** Alma, Barnes, Doolin, Hargrave, Hodges, Kauger, Lavender, Opala, Simms, Wilson
- **Cited by:** 287 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9629060

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that "[all findings of fact made in the trial tribunal's decision under review are conclusive and binding unless they have been ascertained to lack support in competent evidence."
- applying the any-competent-evidence standard of review to appeals of factual determinations by the Workers' Compensation court and de novo review of legal issues pursuant to section 26 of the 1977 amendments

## Opinion text

ALMA WILSON, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. With the 1978 amendments to 85 O.S.1971, § 77, now 85 O.S.1981, § 3.6(A), the court en banc may reverse or modify the decision of the trial judge only if it determines that such decision was against the clear weight of the evidence or contrary to law. For there to be a meaningful review by either the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court of the en banc decision, particularly where the trial court is reversed on the ground its decision was against the clear weight of the evi *553 dence, our task must be to determine whether the court en banc’s reversal was in compliance with its statutorily prescribed standard of review. Absent compliance with its own standard, its decision would be erroneous as a matter of law.
Review of the decisions of the court en banc by the “any competent evidence” standard could lead to this Court’s affirming an en banc’s reversal of the trial court where the court en banc’s decision was supported by some competent evidence, even though the trial court’s decision may have been overwhelmingly supported by the evidence. I do not believe that the Legislature intended such an anomalous result.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9629060. Public record. Not legal advice.