Ponca Iron & Metal, Inc. v. Wilkinson

• Decision Date: 19 October 2010
• Docket Number: No. 106,164.,106,164.
• Citation: 2010 OK 75,242 P.3d 534
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court
• Parties: PONCA IRON & METAL, INC., Own Risk # 11794, Petitioner/Appellant, v. Jackie WILKINSON and The Workers' Compensation Court, Respondents/Appellees.

242 P.3d 534

2010 OK 75

PONCA IRON & METAL, INC., Own Risk # 11794, Petitioner/Appellant,

v.Jackie WILKINSON and The Workers' Compensation Court, Respondents/Appellees.

No. 106,164.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

Oct. 19, 2010.

ON CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS DIVISION 1

¶ 0 Petitioner/Appellant, Ponca Iron & Metal, Inc., seeks review of an order of the Workers' Compensation Court and subsequent sustainment of this order by the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals, Division I, awarding Respondent, Jackie Wilkinson, temporary total disability benefits and medical care, and denying Employer's statute-of-limitation defense. We granted Appellant's Petition for Certiorari.

CERTIORARI PREVIOUSLY GRANTED; OPINION OF THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS VACATED; WORKERS' COMPENSATION COURT ORDER SUSTAINED.

R. Dean Lott, Larry C. Brawner, Brawner Law Office, Oklahoma City, OK, for Petitioner/Appellant.

James G. Devinney, Ponca City, OK, for Respondents/Appellees.

HARGRAVE, J.

¶ 1 Petitioner/Appellant, Ponca Iron & Metal, Inc., (Employer) seeks review of an order of the Workers' Compensation Court and subsequent sustainment of this order by the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals, Division I, awarding Respondent, Jackie Wilkinson (Claimant), temporary total disability (TTD) benefits and medical care, and denying Employer's statute of limitation defense. The opinion of the Court of Civil appeals is vacated.

¶ 2 Claimant's job duties with Employer dealt with computer keyboard use and filing. Her employment was terminated on December 18, 2005. Employer denied receiving proper notice of the claim, and that the injury arose out of or in the course of Claimant's employment. In addition, Employer asserted Claimant's claim was barred for failure to file the claim within the six-month statutory time period set forth at 85 O.S. Supp.2005 § 43(A).

¶ 3 The trial court found Claimant sustained a work-related injury to her left and right hands, and left arm arising out of and in the course of her employment with Employer. The court further found Claimant was entitled to medical treatment and temporary total disability (TTD) benefits beginning August 13, 2006, and continuing for a period of time not to exceed fifty-two (52) weeks. Employer appealed the order to a three-judge panel of the Workers' Compensation Court (Panel) which affirmed the trial court's order, with one modification to the interest rate. Employer then sought review by the appellate court. The Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, in an unpublished opinion in Case No. 104,690, Ponca Iron & Metal, Own Risk v. Wilkinson & the Workers' Compensation Court, reversed and remanded the case to the trial court with instructions to address the statute-of-limitations defense. On remand, the trial court denied Employer's statute-of-limitations defense holding this section "unreasonably singles out employees who have been terminated and have sustained cumulative trauma injuries. The law is in direct conflict with the general two year statute of limitations for cumulative trauma injuries and arbitrarily puts an unfair burden on these claimants."

¶ 4 On appeal, the Court of Civil Appeals, Division I, found the statutory language to be ambiguous, and that when an ambiguity exists as to legislative intent, the appellate courts invoke the construction which is most reasonable, citing LeFlore v. Reflections of Tulsa, Inc., 1985 OK 72 ¶ 28, 708 P.2d 1068, 1075. The Court of Civil Appeals opined that the phrase "termination of employment" might apply to voluntary termination, as well as involuntary termination, and all people leaving employment would be subject to a shortened limitations period. Next, the Court of Civil Appeals found that the legislature enacted this language to curtail retaliatory workers' compensation claims filed by terminated employees and that it applied only to injuries sustained after employment was terminated. The claimant also argued that the last sentence of 85 O.S. Supp.2005 § 43(A) is a special law prohibited by the Oklahoma Constitution, Art. 5, § 46. The Court of Civil Appeals declined to address this argument, holding that its opinion is based on the ambiguity of the statute.

¶ 5 The statute in question in the instant matter, 85 O.S. Supp.2005 § 43(A) provides:

The right to claim compensation under the Workers' Compensation Act shall be forever barred unless, within two (2) years after the date of accidental injury or death, a claim for compensation is filed with the Workers' Compensation Court. Provided however, a claim may be filed within two (2) years of the last medical treatment which was authorized by the employer or the insurance carrier or payment of any compensation or remuneration paid in lieu of compensation. Provided further however, with respect to disease or injury caused by repeated trauma causally connected with employment, a claim may be filed within two (2) years of the date of last trauma or hazardous exposure. Provided, further however, in the case of asbestosis, silicosis or exposure to nuclear radiation causally connected with employment, a claim may be filed within two (2) years of the date of last hazardous exposure or within two (2) years from the date said condition first becomes manifest by a symptom or condition from which one learned in medicine could, with reasonable accuracy, diagnose such specific condition, whichever last occurs. The filing of any form or report by the employer or

...