FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF LEFLORE COUNTY, THE HONORABLE TED
ORDER OF SUMMARY DISPOSITION
Rule 1.201 of the Oklahoma Supreme Court Rules provides that
"[i]n any case in which it appears that a prior
controlling appellate decision is dispositive of the appeal,
the court may summarily affirm or reverse, citing in its
order of summary disposition this rule and the controlling
decision." Okla. S.Ct. Rule 1.201.
After reviewing the record in this case, THE COURT FINDS that
our recent decision in Young v. Station 27, Inc.,
2017 OK 68, 404 P.3d 829, disposes of the issues in this
In Young, we held that a plaintiff's retaliatory
discharge action is based upon the retaliatory discharge
statute in effect when the workers' compensation injury
occurred. Young, 2017 OK 68, ¶ 0, 404 P.3d 830.
Young's work related injuries that formed the basis for
her workers' compensation claim occurred prior to the
effective date of the new Administrative Workers'
Compensation Act (AWCA).  We were clear in Young
that the retaliation statute under the AWCA  does not
apply to conduct relating to other workers' compensation
statutes. Young, 2017 OK 68, ¶ 10, 404 P.3d 835.
Thus, even though Young's employment termination occurred
after the effective date of the AWCA,  her claim for
retaliatory discharge related back to the injury date giving
rise to her workers' compensation claim. We held that
Young's retaliatory discharge action was governed by the
statute in effect on the date of her injury, 85 O.S. 2011
Hopson, the plaintiff/appellant in the instant appeal,
sustained work related injuries and sought workers'
compensation benefits prior to the effective date of the
AWCA. He was terminated after the effective date of the AWCA.
As in Young, the employer urged that the AWCA
governed the resolution of the retaliatory discharge claim as
Hopson's discharge occurred after the AWCA
became effective. We rejected this argument in
Young, and made clear that the retaliatory discharge
claim relates back to the date of the injury giving rise to
the original workers' compensation claim. We hold that
Hopson's retaliatory discharge claim is governed by 85
O.S. 2011 § 341, the statute in effect at the time of
the injuries giving rise to his workers' compensation
We further deny Appellee's motion to dismiss appeal.
Appellee relied on Buckley v. Kelly, 1927 OK 191,
257 P. 1107, and urged that Hopson abandoned his appeal when
he filed an action before the AWCA for retaliatory discharge
after initiating this appeal. Appellee's reliance on
Buckley is misplaced. After Buckley initiated his
appeal, he filed an identical action in federal district
court and then asked this Court to (1) strike his appeal from
hearing and (2) requested his appeal remain pending awaiting
the final termination of his federal court action. Buckley
specifically asked this Court to delay our decision pending
action by the federal court. Under such circumstances, we
held that Buckley abandoned his appeal before this Court.
Buckley is inapposite to the facts of this instant
appeal. Hopson has made clear that he is seeking resolution
from this Court. The district court issued an order
dismissing his action for retaliatory discharge ruling that
the trial court lacked jurisdiction and his claims were
covered by the retaliatory discharge statute under the AWCA
and must be filed in that venue. Hopson filed this appeal as
he believed his claims for retaliatory discharge were
governed by 85 O.S. 2011 § 341, the statute in effect at
the time of his injury. However, being mindful of the one
year statute of limitations under the AWCA for retaliatory
discharge, Hopson filed a claim in that venue to preserve any
possible claim. Hopson has not sought a trial before the
Commission; he has remained active in his appeal and
continued to request this Court to rule on his appeal. On
October 12, 2017, he filed a pleading, Appellant's Advice
of Ruling, asking to supplement the record and note the
holding in Young that the district court has
jurisdiction over this claim and not the AWCA.
We find that the district court erred in granting the motion
to dismiss, and that Hopson has standing to pursue his
retaliatory discharge claim.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the district court's order
of dismissal is vacated, and the cause remanded to the
district court for further proceedings.
 85A O.S. §§ 1-125.
 85A O.S.Supp. 2013 § 7.
 We specifically noted that the language in
85A, section 7, the retaliatory discharge statute in the
AWCA, referring to retaliatory discharge actions that arise
under "this act, " "unambiguously refers to
the Administrative Workers' Compensation Act, and is
judicially construed as an expression of legislative intent
to accomplish that result which we are not ...