Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals

Division I

119,663 – Clarice Peaches Johnson, Petitioner, v. Multiple Injury Trust Fund and the Oklahoma Workers’ Compensation Commission, Respondent. Claimant, Clarice Peaches Johnson, appeals the Workers’ Compensation Commission’s denial of permanent total disability against the Multiple Injury Trust Fund.  The issue presented is whether Claimant was a previously impaired person.  An obvious and apparent injury can be established either by lay testimony alone or in conjunction with medical evidence. Special Indemnity Fund v. Estill, 1997 OK 99, ¶7, 943 P.2d 606, 609.  The decision of the Administrative Law Judge did not discuss the medical evidence although the reports of the adversarial physicians both found an obvious and apparent previous injury.  Pursuant to 85A O.S. Supp. 2014 §30A(3), Claimant was a previously impaired person.  Reversed.  Opinion by GOREE, P.J.; MITCHELL, J., concurs and PRINCE, J. concurs in result. – Dec. 16, 2021

119,690–In the matter of N.J., Jr., Alleged Deprived Child; Averie Phillips, Appellant, v. State of Oklahoma, Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Pittsburg County, Oklahoma.  Honorable Mindy Beare, Judge.  Averie Phillips, the natural mother (Mother), seeks review of the trial court’s order terminating her parental rights to N.J., Jr., a minor child, (Child).  Child is an Indian Child as defined by the Federal and State Indian Child Welfare Acts (ICWA), 25 U.S.C. §1901 et seq.; 10 O.S. §40 et seq.  The issue before this court is whether the State of Oklahoma (State) met its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt — as required by ICWA — that Mother’s custody of Child was likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage to Child.  Following a review for clear and convincing evidence, we find the State met its burden and AFFIRM.  Opinion by MITCHELL, J.; GOREE, P.J., and PRINCE, J., concurs. – Dec. 16, 2021

Division II

119,364 — In the Matter of the Minor Child, C.L.M.-S., Harry Ransom Schneider, Jr., Appellant, vs. Vashti Gentry and Don Gentry, Appellees.  Appeal from an order of the District Court of Logan County, Hon. Susan C. Worthington, Trial Judge.  Harry Ransom Schneider, Jr., appeals a trial court order finding that CLM-S, a minor child, is eligible for adoption without his consent, granting the petition to terminate his parental rights, and finding that the adoption of the minor child by his stepfather, Don Gentry, is in the child’s best interest.  We address the issues of whether the trial court’s findings as being in CLM-S’s best interest are supported by clear and convincing evidence.  We hold that the trial court’s order finding CLM-S eligible for adoption without Schneider’s consent, terminating Schneider’s parental rights, and finding that CLM-S’s best interests would be served by approving the adoption is supported by clear and convincing evidence.  Accordingly, we affirm.  AFFIRMED.  Opinion from the Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by WISEMAN, P.J.; BARNES, J., and BLACKWELL, J., concur. – Dec. 21, 2021

119,620 — In re the Adoption of:  G.M.M., Minor Child, Terry D. McTee, Appellant, vs. Amanda Paciorek and Jared Paciorek, Appellees.  Appeal from an order of the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Allen Welch, Trial Judge.  Terry D. McTee appeals a trial court order finding that GMM, a minor child, is eligible for adoption without his consent because he failed to establish or maintain a positive relationship with her for 12 consecutive months of the last 14 months immediately preceding the date that Amanda and Jared Paciorek filed their petition to adopt.  We are asked to review whether this decision is supported by clear and convincing evidence.  After considering McTee’s arguments and reviewing the record on appeal, we conclude that the trial court’s order finding GMM is eligible for adoption without McTee’s consent is supported by clear and convincing evidence, and the order is affirmed.  AFFIRMED.  Opinion from the Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by WISEMAN, P.J.; BARNES, J., and BLACKWELL, J., concur. – Dec. 21, 2021

119,629 — Kirk Marshall, PLLC, Plaintiff/Appellant, vs. State of Oklahoma ex rel. Oklahoma Department of Agriculture, Defendant/Appellee.  Appeal from an order of the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Susan Stallings, Trial Judge, denying Plaintiff’s motion for temporary restraining order and temporary injunction and a related motion for protective order to prevent Defendant State of Oklahoma ex rel. Oklahoma Department of Agriculture from disclosing the identities of informants who could identify cattle thieves, details about the cattle theft, and the location of stolen cattle. Our review convinces us that Plaintiff has not met its burden to establish the informants’ identities are protected by the identity of informer privilege, attorney-client privilege, or work product doctrine.  Because Plaintiff has not established the privileged nature of the information pursuant to 51 O.S. § 24A.5, the trial court’s denial of Plaintiff’s motion for temporary restraining order and temporary injunction and related motion for protective order was not clearly erroneous and not subject to reversal as an abuse of discretion.  AFFIRMED.  Opinion from the Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by WISEMAN, P.J.; BARNES, J., and BLACKWELL, J., concur. – Dec. 20, 2021

Division III

Division IV

119,157 — Clinton Bratcher and Connie Bratcher, Plaintiffs/Appellants, vs. Regional Acceptance Corporation and Consumer Portfolio Services, Inc., Defendants/ Appellees, and NMD Holding, L.L.C., d/b/a Norman Mitsubishi, Additional Defendant.  Appeal from an Order of the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Don Andrews, Trial Judge.  Clinton and Connie Bratcher (Bratchers) appeal an order confirming an arbitration award and denying their Supplemental Application for Attorney Fees and Costs and Motion to Modify Arbitrator’s Award on Attorney Fees and Costs.  We find that the court property confirmed the arbitration award as well as denied the Bratchers’ request for pre- and post-arbitration fees.  Accordingly, the trial court’s order is affirmed.  AFFIRMED.  Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by HIXON, P.J.; FISCHER, V.C.J., and RAPP, J., concur. – Dec. 17, 2021

119,862 — Ron Alexander, Plaintiff/Appellant, vs. Robert Fear and Patrick Harrington, Defendants/Appellees.  Appeal from an Order of the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Don Andrews, Trial Judge.  Ron Alexander (Alexander) appeals an order granting Robert Fear and Patrick Harrington’s (collectively, Defendants) motion for summary judgment, finding Alexander was estopped from asserting ownership in certain vehicles.  To establish Alexander did not have a property interest or ownership in the vehicles, Defendants asserted the doctrine of judicial estoppel was applicable.  The trial court agreed, finding Alexander was precluded from asserting an ownership interest in the vehicles for failing to list the vehicles in previous bankruptcy filings.  Alexander contends this was error.  We agree.  The record on appeal provides Alexander did not disclose the vehicles as a potential asset of his estate in bankruptcy filings.  However, Alexander’s bankruptcies were dismissed; he did not receive a discharge of his debts in bankruptcy.  Thus, there was no determination by a court based on Alexander’s bankruptcy filings.  Accordingly, the trial court erred in applying judicial estoppel to preclude Alexander from asserting an ownership interest in the vehicles.  The court’s order granting Defendants’ summary adjudication is therefore reversed.  REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.  Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by HIXON, P.J.; FISCHER, V.C.J., and RAPP, J., concur. –Dec. 16, 2021

119,282 — Jim McBride, Plaintiff/Appellee, vs. Ronald Joseph Alexander, Jr., Defendant/Appellant.  Appeal from an Order of the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Don Andrews, Trial Judge.  Ronald Joseph Alexander, Jr. (Alexander) appeals the trial court’s orders granting judgment to Jim McBride (McBride) for ejectment and unpaid rent.  The issue on appeal is whether the trial court correctly entered summary adjudication in McBride’s favor, finding Alexander had no right, title, claim or interest in the property, that McBride was the owner of good and perfect title, and that McBride was entitled to ejectment and past due rent.  We affirm the trial court’s order finding Alexander had no right, title, claim or interest in the property and McBride was the owner of good and perfect title, and the trial court’s order ejecting Alexander from the property and awarding McBride past due rent of $53,350.00.  We reverse that portion of the November 23, 2020 order awarding McBride $30,099.89 and remand for further proceedings.  AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.  Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by HIXON, P.J.; FISCHER, V.C.J., and RAPP, J., concur. – Dec. 16, 2021

119,653 — Donna Blake, Petitioner, vs. Great Plains Regional Medical Center, Oklahoma Health Care Association (Group #75175), and The Workers’ Compensation Commission, Respondents.  Appeal from The Workers’ Compensation Commission.  Donna Blake (Claimant) seeks review of an Order of the Workers’ Compensation Commission (Commission), affirming an Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) decision finding she sustained a single-event injury to her neck, but not to her lumbar spine, as a result of an accident while employed as a Registered Nurse for Great Plains Regional Medical Center (Employer).  Claimant alleges only that the Commission’s decision was clearly erroneous in view of the competent evidence, implicating issues of fact.  The record contains reliable, material, probative and substantial competent evidence supporting the Commission’s decision.  Thus, we are unable to find the Commission’s decision is clearly erroneous.  Finding no error, we sustain the Commission’s Order.  SUSTAINED.  Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by HIXON, P.J.; FISCHER, V.C.J., and RAPP, J., concur. – Dec. 16, 2021