 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
McCarter v. Rainbo Baking Co.6/18/1998
Opinion Services
MCCARTER v. RAINBO BAKING CO.
___ P.2d ___
Decided: February 10, 1998
RELEASED FOR PUBLICATION BY ORDER OF THE OKLAHOMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING TO REVIEW ORDERS OF
THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION COURT THREE-JUDGE judges
Honorable James S. Porter, Trial Judge
REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS
Claimant seeks review of orders of the Workers' Compensation Court three-Judge panel affirming the trial court's judgments setting compensation pursuant to 85 O.S. Supp. 1996 Section 22(3)(b). After a review of the record on appeal and applicable law, we reverse.
Claimant J.R. McCarter filed three separate Form 3s claiming cumulative trauma injury resulting from his employment with Rainbo Baking Company -- (l) injuries to his neck and shoulders; (2) injury to his "low back"; and (3) injury to his right hand. Claimant listed the last date of exposure on all three claims as June 22, 1995. Employer responded by challenging Claimant's assertion that he had sustained a work-related injury.
The trial court entered an order consolidating all three claims, and they were heard in one hearing. The trial court found that Claimant had sustained a work-related injury as to each claim and entered a separate order relative to each. In Court Number 95-15819Y, it found that Claimant had sustained cumulative trauma to his right hand and awarded compensation for eleven percent permanent partial disability (PPD). In Court Number 95-15178X, the trial court found that Claimant had sustained cumulative trauma to his neck, right shoulder and left shoulder resulting in seven percent PPD to the body as a whole due to the right shoulder injury but with no disability regarding the neck or left shoulder. In Court Number 95-15179A, the trial court found that Claimant had sustained cumulative trauma to his back and awarded compensation for seven percent PPD to the body as a whole for that injury. The trial court then applied 85 O.S. Supp. 1996 Section 22(3)(b)(1), in setting compensation for the adjudicated PPD to Claimant's shoulder and back and section 22(3)(b)(1) and (2) in setting compensation for PPD to his right hand.
Both Employer and Claimant appealed to a three-Judge panel. Claimant asserted that the trial court incorrectly applied section 22(3)(b) in calculating compensation , and Employer asserted that Claimant's injuries did not arise out of and during the course of his employment. The three-Judge panel affirmed each of the orders. Claimant appeals.
The material facts of this case are not in dispute, and the sole issue is whether the trial court properly applied the appropriate law to the facts. The court in Oklahoma Petroleum Workers' Compensation Association v. Mid-Continent Casualty Co., 1994 OK CIV APP 107, , 887 P.2d 335, 337, established that where there are no disputed facts, a question of law is presented. It is well established that defining the law is the role of the appellate court; thus, "it independently reviews questions of law." Id. Factual determinations by the Workers' Compensation Court are not reviewed independently if supported by any competent evidence, but Conclusions of law made thereunder are reviewable by the appellate court. Loggins v. Wetumka Gen. Hosp., 1978 OK 150, , 587 P.2d 455, 457.
Claimant proposes that the trial court erred in its application of the provisions of 85 O.S. Supp. 1996 Section 22(3)(b), in determining the number of weeks of compensation to which he was entitled. He maintains that he sustained cumulative trauma injury and PPD to three separate body parts --
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.
|
|