 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Autry v. Multiple Injury Trust Fund9/25/2001
__ P.3d __
CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS, DIVISION III
Claimant was awarded permanent partial disability in separate adjudications of two work-related injuries. He then sought benefits from Multiple Injury Trust Fund. Workers' Compensation Court, Honorable Jerry L. Salyer, held that, under 1999 amendment to section 172 (A) of Workers' Compensation Act, Claimant was not entitled to Fund benefits. Court of Civil Appeals vacated order and remanded matter to Workers' Compensation Court.
CERTIORARI PREVIOUSLY GRANTED; OPINION OF COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS VACATED; ORDER OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION COURT VACATED AND CAUSE REMANDED FOR ROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION.
The facts are not disputed. Charles Thomas Autry (Claimant) sustained a compensable injury to his lower back on March 8, 1994. On January 2, 1995, he suffered a second injury, this one to his right foot. Both injuries occurred while he was working for Lance, Inc. (Employer). A workers' compensation claim was filed for each injury.
Permanent partial disability was awarded on September 1, 1999, for the first injury and on September 14, 1999 for the second injury. Claimant challenged the trial tribunal's calculation of benefits for the first injury before an en banc panel of the Workers' Compensation Court. On November 1, 1999, while that decision was pending, the 1999 amendment to section 172 (A) of the Workers' Compensation Act, Okla. Stat. tit. 85, §§ 1-211 (1991 & Supp. 2000), went into effect. On December 16, 1999, the en banc panel issued an order correcting the trial tribunal's calculation of benefits.
Claimant filed a claim for benefits from the Multiple Injury Trust Fund (Fund) on January 26, 2000. The Workers' Compensation Court adopted the argument of the Fund and held that Claimant could not recover benefits from the Fund under the 1999 amendment. The Court of Civil Appeals vacated the order adopting Claimant's argument that the pre-1999 version of section 172(A) applied as the law in effect at the time of the subsequent injury.
The legal issue arises from the Legislature's amendment of § 172 (A) of the Workers' Compensation Act effective November 1, 1999. Prior to that date, certain permanent partial disability claimants were entitled to receive benefits from the Fund. After the 1999 amendment, however, section 172 (A) (2) (b) provides that "for actions filed after October 31, 1999" the claimant shall receive permanent partial disability from the employer only. Thus additional benefits were no longer available from the Fund.
Claimant argues that the Court of Civil Appeals was correct in applying the pre-1999 version of section 172(A) as the law in effect at the time of the most recent injury. The Fund argues that the express language of the 1999 amendment demonstrates the legislative intent that the statute should be applied retroactively to all claims filed for benefits from the Fund after October 31, 1999, without regard to the date of the most recent injury.
The dispositive threshold question is not which version of section 172 (A) applies. On November 1, 1999, the 1999 amendment became effective, contrary to the conclusion of the Court of Civil Appeals. Rather, it is the meaning of the phrase "for actions filed after October 31, 1999" which controls. Does the phrase refer to an "action" for permanent partial disability benefits for the second injury or an "action" for benefits from the Fund following an adjudication of the second injury? This Court determines that the Legislature was referring to an action on the second injury when it drew the distinction between actions filed before November 1
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.
|
|