Workers' Comp Exclusivity in Oklahoma

Getting hurt on the job forces you into one of the most consequential legal decisions you may ever face — and you often have to make it while you are still in pain, still scared, and still unsure how bad the injury really is. Do you file a workers' compensation claim and start receiving benefits right away? Or do you file a lawsuit in district court, where the potential recovery is higher but the process is slower and less certain? Under Oklahoma law, you cannot do both. And as of February 2026, the Oklahoma Supreme Court has made clear that once you choose the workers' compensation route, there is no going back — even if you later decide to dismiss that claim.

What the Court Decided in Cactus Drilling v. Kirkland

On February 9, 2026, the Oklahoma Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion in Cactus Drilling Company, L.L.C. v. The Honorable Kory Kirkland, 2026 OK 7, that resolves a question Oklahoma employers and employees have been grappling with since the Court's landmark 2023 decision in Kpiele-Poda v. Patterson-UTI Energy, 2023 OK 11, 525 P.3d 28.

The facts are straightforward and, for oilfield workers across the state, painfully familiar. In 2019, James Faulkner was working on a drill line at an oil rig when a 30-pound piece of equipment malfunctioned and fell from a height of 40 feet, striking him on the hard hat and causing a traumatic brain injury. His injuries were catastrophic — the kind of case where workers' compensation benefits, which are capped by statute, often feel inadequate compared to the full scope of the harm.

Faulkner did what many injured workers do: he filed a workers' compensation claim to get immediate medical treatment and indemnity benefits, and he also filed a lawsuit in Grady County District Court against his employer, Cactus Drilling, alleging both negligence and gross negligence. His workers' compensation claim produced over $265,000 in benefits for medical expenses and indemnification.

In 2023, after the Court decided Kpiele-Poda — which held that an injured employee cannot simultaneously maintain an action in both the Workers' Compensation Commission and in district court — Faulkner tried a workaround. He voluntarily dismissed his workers' compensation claim with prejudice, hoping that by closing out the comp case, he could proceed exclusively in district court on his gross negligence claim.

The Grady County District Court agreed and allowed the case to continue. The Oklahoma Supreme Court reversed unanimously.

The "But Not Both" Rule

The heart of this case is 85A O.S. § 5(J) (formerly § 5(I)), which reads in relevant part:

If the employer has failed to secure the payment of compensation as provided in the [AWCA] or in the case of an intentional tort, the injured employee or his or her legal representative may maintain an action either before the Oklahoma Workers' Compensation Commission or in the district court, but not both.

The Supreme Court first interpreted this language in Kpiele-Poda, concluding that the Legislature intended for workers to choose one forum, not to shuttle between two. The phrase "but not both" is not advisory — it is a hard prohibition. The Court explained that this rule "serves to protect employers from defending against two claims filed simultaneously in different forums — and bolsters the underlying public policy against double recovery."

What Cactus Drilling adds is a critical clarification: the election is triggered by maintaining an action in one forum, not by maintaining it continuously through final judgment. As the Court wrote, "the plain and ordinary meaning of 'maintain an action' means to pursue, continue, or institute." Faulkner instituted a workers' compensation claim, invoked the Workers' Compensation Commission's jurisdiction, pursued and continued that claim for almost two years, and received over $265,000 in benefits. He maintained an action under the AWCA. The fact that he later dismissed it did not un-ring the bell.

Why Dismissing Your Comp Claim Doesn't Fix It

This is the most important practical takeaway for workers and their families. The strategy Faulkner attempted — file workers' comp first for quick benefits, then dismiss and pivot to district court for an uncapped damages claim — is now unequivocally foreclosed.

The Court addressed two reasons this strategy fails. First, under the statute's plain language, "maintaining" an action encompasses the act of instituting and pursuing it — not just keeping it alive through final resolution. Once you file, invoke the Commission's jurisdiction, and receive benefits, you have made your election. A subsequent dismissal does not erase the fact that you maintained the action.

Second, the Court explained why the district court's subrogation workaround does not cure the problem. The district court had tried to let Faulkner's case proceed but subject to subrogation — meaning any future court recovery would be offset by the workers' comp benefits already paid. The Supreme Court rejected this reasoning. Under Oklahoma's subrogation statute, 85A O.S. § 43(B)(1), the workers' comp carrier steps into the injured worker's shoes to recover against the at-fault third party. But here, the employer is the workers' comp insurer — it would have to file a subrogation action against itself. That is not permissible and would effectively enable the double recovery that the exclusivity rule exists to prevent.

What This Means for Injured Workers

The Cactus Drilling decision has immediate, practical consequences for anyone who gets hurt on the job in Oklahoma.

Choose wisely at the outset. The moment you file a workers' compensation claim, you have likely locked yourself into that system for good. That may be perfectly fine for moderate injuries where the comp benefits adequately cover your medical costs and lost wages. But for catastrophic injuries — traumatic brain injuries, spinal cord damage, amputations, severe burns — the capped benefits available through workers' comp may represent a fraction of what a jury would award in district court. Once you file, you cannot reconsider.

Consult an attorney before filing anything. This has always been sound advice, but Cactus Drilling makes it urgent. Before you file a Form 3 or a Form 3A with the Workers' Compensation Commission, before you accept your first temporary total disability check, before your employer's insurance adjuster walks you through the process, talk to a lawyer who understands both workers' compensation and personal injury litigation. An experienced attorney can evaluate whether your injury is one where the uncapped damages available in district court — including pain and suffering, loss of consortium, and punitive damages — substantially exceed what workers' comp will provide.

Understand the tradeoffs. Workers' compensation is a no-fault system. You do not have to prove your employer was negligent — only that you were injured in the course of employment. Benefits begin relatively quickly, and medical treatment is covered from the start. A district court lawsuit, by contrast, requires proof of fault (negligence or gross negligence), takes longer to resolve, and carries the risk of losing entirely. But the upside is that damages are not capped by the workers' comp fee schedule, and a jury can award compensation for the full extent of your pain, suffering, and diminished quality of life.

How Kpiele-Poda Built the Foundation

To fully appreciate Cactus Drilling, you need to understand the 2023 decision it builds on. In Kpiele-Poda v. Patterson-UTI Energy, 2023 OK 11, 525 P.3d 28, an employee filed a workers' compensation claim, received medical treatment and temporary total disability benefits, and then filed a separate lawsuit in district court alleging negligence and an intentional tort against his employer. The employer moved to dismiss the district court case under the AWCA's exclusivity rule.

The Supreme Court sided with the employer, holding that § 5(I) (now § 5(J)) requires an injured worker to choose one forum. The Court rejected the argument that an employee could pursue intentional tort claims in district court while simultaneously receiving workers' comp benefits, stating that the prohibition against claim-splitting applied even to intentional tort claims. The foundation was set: the AWCA's exclusivity provision means what it says, and "but not both" is a binding limitation.

Cactus Drilling extends this principle to a scenario Kpiele-Poda did not address — what happens when the worker tries to close the comp case after the fact. The answer, now settled, is that closing it does not matter. The election was made when the action was first maintained.

The Broader Landscape: When Exclusivity Does Not Apply

It is important to note that the AWCA's exclusivity rule has specific exceptions. The statute itself acknowledges that an injured worker may bring a district court action "in the case of an intentional tort." If an employer deliberately injures a worker — not merely through carelessness, but through a willful act intended to cause harm — the employee is not limited to workers' comp remedies. But the bar for proving an intentional tort is high, and under Kpiele-Poda and Cactus Drilling, an employee who has already filed a workers' comp claim cannot later pursue even an intentional tort claim in district court.

There are also scenarios where a worker's injury is caused by a third party rather than the employer — for example, a manufacturer of defective equipment, a negligent subcontractor, or a reckless driver on a public road. In those cases, the injured employee may file a workers' comp claim against their employer and a separate personal injury lawsuit against the at-fault third party. The exclusivity rule does not bar claims against parties other than the employer. If you were hurt on an oil rig by defective equipment manufactured by a third-party company, your attorney can pursue both paths simultaneously — workers' comp against your employer for wage and medical benefits, and a product liability suit against the manufacturer for full damages.

Workers who believe their employer retaliated against them for filing a comp claim also retain the right to bring a separate retaliation action under 85A O.S. § 7, which prohibits employers from firing, demoting, or punishing employees for exercising their workers' comp rights.

Practical Steps to Protect Your Rights

Given the stakes, injured workers should take these steps immediately after a workplace injury:

Report the injury to your employer but do not file a Form 3 or accept benefits without legal advice. Reporting is required, but filing the formal claim with the Workers' Compensation Commission is the act that triggers the exclusivity election. There may be strategic reasons to delay filing while your attorney evaluates the full picture.

Preserve evidence. Whether you end up in workers' comp or district court, evidence matters. Photograph the scene, save communications, identify witnesses, and request copies of any incident reports. Our guidance on evidence preservation applies with full force to workplace injuries.

Get a comprehensive medical evaluation. The initial diagnosis from the ER or company doctor may understate the severity of your injury. A traumatic brain injury diagnosis, for instance, may not be fully apparent for days or weeks. Understanding the full extent of your injury is essential to making the right forum decision.

Do not sign anything from the insurance company without review. Employers' workers' comp insurers will move quickly to get you into their system. Signing authorizations, recorded statements, or settlement offers before understanding the implications can limit your options.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I file a workers' comp claim and a lawsuit at the same time in Oklahoma?

No. Under 85A O.S. § 5(J) and the Supreme Court's decisions in Kpiele-Poda (2023) and Cactus Drilling (2026), an injured employee must choose one forum — the Workers' Compensation Commission or district court — but not both. Filing in one forum bars the other.

What if I already filed workers' comp — can I dismiss it and sue instead?

No. The Cactus Drilling decision specifically addresses this scenario. Once you have instituted and maintained a workers' comp claim — even if you later voluntarily dismiss it — you are barred from suing your employer in district court for the same injury.

Does the exclusivity rule apply to intentional tort claims?

The statute permits district court actions for intentional torts, but under Kpiele-Poda, if you have already filed a workers' comp claim and received benefits, you cannot then bring an intentional tort claim in a separate forum. The "but not both" prohibition applies to all claims arising from the same injury.

Can I still sue a third party if I filed workers' comp against my employer?

Yes. The exclusivity rule only bars claims against your employer. If a third party — such as a manufacturer of defective equipment, a negligent subcontractor, or a reckless driver — contributed to your injury, you may pursue a personal injury claim against that third party in district court while also receiving workers' comp benefits from your employer.

How do I know whether to file workers' comp or a lawsuit?

This depends on the severity of your injury, the strength of your negligence evidence, and whether the workers' comp benefits would adequately compensate your losses. For moderate injuries, workers' comp provides fast, guaranteed benefits without having to prove fault. For catastrophic injuries — traumatic brain injuries, spinal cord damage, severe burns — the uncapped damages available in district court may far exceed what workers' comp offers. An experienced attorney can evaluate these factors before you commit to a path.

What if my employer doesn't carry workers' compensation insurance?

If your employer fails to secure workers' comp coverage as required by law, the exclusivity protections do not apply. Under § 5(J), the right to bring a district court action exists when "the employer has failed to secure the payment of compensation." In that situation, you may sue your employer directly for negligence without being limited to the workers' comp system.

Does this ruling affect claims against the employer for retaliation?

No. Workers' comp retaliation claims under 85A O.S. § 7 are separate from the underlying injury claim. If your employer fires you or retaliates against you for filing a comp claim, you can bring a retaliation action in district court regardless of the exclusivity rule.

---

This article is for general information only and is not legal advice.