 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Armstrong v. Unit Drilling3/12/2002
73 OBJ 899
__ P.3d __
CERTIORARI TO THE OKLAHOMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS, DIVISION NO. 1
The Court of Civil Appeals, Division 1, affirmed an order of the Workers' Compensation Court that had denied the request of Petitioner, Gary Armstrong, that Respondents, Unit Drilling and Liberty Mutual, be required to continue to pay for Armstrong's prescription medications. Following the entry of an order by the Workers' Compensation Court in 1993 that had found Armstrong to have been permanently and totally disabled as the result of a work related chest injury and heart attack, Respondents paid for Armstrong's prescription medications for the next six years but stopped paying for them in 1999. We granted certiorari on November 26, 2001.
CERTIORARI PREVIOUSLY GRANTED, COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS' OPINION VACATED, ORDER OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION COURT REVERSED AND MATTER REMANDED TO THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION.
OPINION
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In 1993 the Workers' Compensation Court, Hon. Terry Pendell, entered an order finding that Petitioner, Gary Armstrong, had sustained an accidental personal injury to his chest and had suffered a heart attack. The court held that Armstrong was totally and permanently disabled as a result of his injury and ordered,
THAT respondent and insurance carrier shall pay all reasonable medical expenses incurred by claimant as a result of said injury.
Respondents, Unit Drilling and Liberty Mutual, appealed the trial court's ruling to a three-judge panel of the Workers' Compensation Court, which affirmed the trial court's order.
It is undisputed that Armstrong sought continuing medical maintenance at the 1993 hearing of his claim. Further, for six years after the entry of the 1993 Workers' Compensation Court's order, Respondents paid for Armstrong's prescription drugs. In 1999 Respondents ceased paying for Armstrong's prescriptions and in 2000 Armstrong filed a request with the Workers' Compensation Court for an order requiring Respondents to continue to pay for his prescriptions.
On March 2, 2001, the Workers' Compensation Court, Hon. James Filosa, denied Armstrong's request that Respondents be required to continue paying for Armstrong's prescriptions. The court so ruled on the following grounds:
THAT, although the claimant requested continuing medical maintenance at the last hearing on permanency, the trial judge failed to make a finding on that issue. The order as written became final without appeal. The respondent's payment for prescription medications for a significant period of time thereafter was gratuitous in nature and without legal effect or requirement.
THAT the claimant has not established or sought a change of condition for the worse in the claim/matter alleged herein and thus is without standing to request continuing medical maintenance to maintain the status quo of permanency previously adjudicated by the Court on DECEMBER 29, 1993, at which the Court was silent on this issue.
Armstrong appealed and the Court of Civil Appeals, Division 1, affirmed the trial court. We granted certiorari on November 26, 2001.
ISSUES
I.
Did the trial court err when it held that Respondents' continuing payment of Armstrong's expenses was "gratuitous"?
II.
Did the trial court err when it held that Armstrong was required to prove his condition had worsened as a prerequisite to establishing his right to an order from the Workers' Compensation Court requiring Responden
Page 1 2 3 4 Oklahoma Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|