Largent v. State Indus. Court, 48867

• Citation: 556 P.2d 262
• Decision Date: 02 November 1976
• Docket Number: No. 48867,48867
• Parties: Samuel W. LARGENT, Petitioner, v. STATE INDUSTRIAL COURT et al., Respondents.
• Court: Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Page 262

556 P.2d 262

Samuel W. LARGENT, Petitioner, v. STATE INDUSTRIAL COURT et al., Respondents.

No. 48867.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

Nov. 2, 1976.

Original Proceeding to Review Order Affirmed by State Industrial Court on En Banc Appeal, which Denied Successful Claimant's Motion to Tex Deposition Expense Against Respondents as Costs; Silas C. Wolf, Trial Judge.

ORDER SUSTAINED.

Bill Pipkin, Moore, for petitioner.

H. A. Bud Carter, Oklahoma City, for respondents.

BARNES, Justice:

This proceeding seeks review of a Trial Judge's order, affirmed on en banc appeal, denying Claimant's motion, which sought to tax costs of Claimant's deposition and expert witness fee against Respondents.

Prior to hearing on the claim, Respondents were furnished copy of a medical report from Dr. C. T., who examined Claimant after release and evaluation of disability by the treating doctor. This report detailed history, injury, ensuing surgical procedures, and reported Claimant totally and permanently disabled. The report disclosed, however, that Claimant had been referred to another physician (Dr. W.), who examined Claimant and reported findings to Dr. C. T. Within five days following receipt of Dr. C. T.'s narrative report, as required by State Industrial Court Rule 12, Respondents notified Claimant the report was objected to as not being the best evidence.

At the hearing (March 12, 1975), Claimant introduced this medical report, and at conclusion of evidence Claimant filed motion to tax costs of deposition. Respondents noted objection had been made to this report, and advised the court this physician was to be deposed that day, without prejudice to trial. The deposition was later introduced in evidence. Claimant then renewed his motion, and the Trial Court took the matter under advisement and granted the parties time for filing briefs.

On May 21, 1975, an order was entered awarding Claimant compensation for permanent partial disability and denying Claimant's motion for taxing of costs of deposition on the Respondents. The denial of this motion was appealed to State Industrial Court en banc, which affirmed the order. The issue presented concerns correctness of that portion of the order denying Claimant's motion.

Claimant's argument insists the motion was proper under the following reasoning. Deposition expenses are proper items of costs to be allowed the prevailing party by statute. 12 O.S.1971 § 538.10; 12 O.S.Supp.1973 § 449. Depositions before State Industrial Court, authorized by 85 O.S.1971 § 82, are governed by procedure prescribed for civil actions in courts of record. State Industrial Court Rule 29, 85 O.S.1971, Chapter 4, Appendix, requires costs to be paid by Respondent in all cases where a final order is entered against Respondent for compensation. Therefore, since Claimant was the prevailing party, all deposition costs should be paid by Respondents, and the order reviewed should be vacated and the cause remanded.

Although this argument appears valid on its face, examination in light of circumstances involved discloses apparent over-simplification of the problem. The medical report furnished Respondents, and thereafter...