NWCDN – Oklahoma
Cases
1. Claimants with
soft tissue injuries requiring surgery can receive benefits for up to 300 weeks
in accordance with Okla. Stat. tit.
85 § 22(2)(c).
Sysco Food Serv. Of Okla. LLC and N.H. Ins. Co. v. Cunningham, 2007 OK CIV APP 52, No. 103844 (Okla. Civ. App. filed Apr. 13,2007).
Claimant injured his shoulder and underwent surgery. Employer paid temporary total disability
benefits (TTD) for a total of 24 weeks. Claimant filed for additional TTD benefits
and Employer denied the benefits asserting that Okla. Stat. tit. 85 § 22(3)(d) limited benefits for soft
tissue damage to a maximum of 24 weeks.
The Court of Civil Appeals resolved this issue in favor of §22(2)(c) by
differentiating between soft tissue damages not requiring surgery (that are
therefore governed by §22(3)(d)) and those requiring surgery, the latter
falling under provision 22(2)(c). The
court found that the most reasonable interpretation of the statutes was that
the failure of §22(3)(d) to specifically mention post-surgical claimants meant
that the provision was not intended to limit their benefits. Claimants with injuries to soft tissue that
require surgery will be able to receive up to 300 weeks of TTD benefits.
2. State justices
reprimand the Workers’ Compensation Court
Janice Francis-Smith, State
Justices Reprimand Workers’ Compensation Court, The Journal Record, June 20, 2007, at 3A.
The Oklahoma Supreme Court reprimanded the Workers’
Compensation Court for their failure to make specific findings of fact and conclusions
of law within their opinions. The
appeals court cannot do their job if the lower court does not present an
adequate review of the evidence. The
Supreme Court said, “An order granting or denying workers’ compensation
benefits must provide the necessary elements for meaningful judicial
review. It must be certain enough to 1)
identify legal theory relied upon and 2) be sufficiently specific to enable the
three-judge panel to ascertain the facts on which the order is based…” The Workers’ Compensation Court is duty-bound
to insure that the three-judge panel, the final arbiter of questions of fact,
is presented with an order from which the panel may meaningfully assess the
legal and factual basis for the decision.
3. Okla. stat. tit. 85 § 16(D) does not
cover the initial evaluation process to determine if a vocational
rehabilitation program is needed or practicable, only when the employee is
actively participating in a retraining program.
Davie v. Fine Arts
Engraving Co., Inc , No. 103749 (Okla. Civ. App. filed Mar. 1, 2007).
The trial court found Claimant had sustained a change of
condition for the worse and awarded 20 percent permanent partial disability to
the psychological overlay over and above the 5 percent that was previously
awarded to her. It also awarded Employer
to provide vocational rehabilitation for Claimant. Claimant appealed and argued that she should
receive benefits under 85 O.S.2001 §16(D).
That section provides that during the period when an employee is
actively participating in a retraining or job placement program for purposes of
evaluating permanent total disability status, the employee shall be entitled to
receive benefits at the same rate as the employee’s temporary total disability
benefits. However, the Court of Civil Appeals found that a Claimant could only
recover under §16(D) if they were actively involved in a retraining program.
4. Under Oklahoma’s
Worker’s Compensation Act, once there has been a final adjudication of the
claimant’s claim in another jurisdiction, the claimant is precluded from filing
for benefits under the laws of this state.
Collins v. UTI Energy Co., No. 103455 (Okla.
Civ. App. filed Feb. 6, 2007).
On Sept. 15, 1999, Claimant filed in Texas and it was later
determined by the Texas Court that the claimant was not within the scope of his
employment and could therefore was not entitled to benefits. In June of 2007 Collins filed for workers’
compensation benefits in Oklahoma. Employer files its answer and denied coverage
based on the statute of limitations and res judicata. Collins argued that under 85 O.S.2001 §4 a
claimant is prevented from seeking benefits in Oklahoma only where a claimant
has actually received an award of benefits in another state and there has been
a final adjudication of his rights under the laws of that state. Employer disagrees and asserts that Collins’
claim is barred. Based on legislative
intent, the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals agreed with the Employer and
determined that once there has been a final adjudication of the claimant’s
claim in another jurisdiction, the claimant is precluded from filing for
benefits under the laws of this state.
5. Claimant who was
previously adjudicated permanently and totally disabled is not entitled to
additional benefits for temporary total disability.
Emery v. Central Okla.
Health Care, 2007 OK 28, No. 102286 (Okla.
May 1, 2007).
Claimant in this case had previously been adjudicated
permanently and totally disabled filed for additional benefits claiming that
she had sustained a change for the worse in her condition and required
additional medical treatment. The
Workers’ Compensation Court denied her request for additional benefits for
temporary total disability but did order Employer to pay for the Claimant’s
additional medical treatment. The Court
of Civil Appeals affirmed this decision and found that Claimant is not entitled
to additional benefits for temporary total disability because there is no
evidence or argument that her disability will ever be less than permanent and
total.
For any information regarding these cases or if you have any questions
on Oklahoma law please feel free to contact Jacque Brawner Dean at
jacque.dean@mcafeetaft.com or 1.800.235.9621.
Home
