Lekan v. P & L Fire Protection Co.
| Citation | 609 P.2d 1289,1980 OK 56 |
| Decision Date | 08 April 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 53437,53437 |
| Parties | Loretta Lynn LEKAN, Claimant and Surviving Spouse of John Frank Lekan, III, Deceased, Claimant, v. P & L FIRE PROTECTION CO. and State Insurance Fund, Respondents. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Oklahoma |
Proceeding to Review a Decision of the Workers' Compensation Court; James M. Fullerton, Judge.
Proceeding by claimant to review en banc decision of the Workers' Compensation Court limiting to $75.00 from inception to termination the aggregate weekly income benefits due all survivor-beneficiaries of worker killed October 13, 1978. AWARD SUSTAINED.
DeVilliers & DeVilliers by W. Rodney DeVilliers, Sr., Oklahoma City, for claimant.
Michelin DeLier, State Insurance Fund, Oklahoma City, for respondents.
By the 1977 amendments which established the Workers' Compensation Act effective July 1, 1978, 1 the aggregate weekly income benefits 2 due all eligible survivors of a worker who died from a compensable injury cannot exceed the rate for permanent total disability 3. That rate stands limited by § 22(6) to:
". . . Seventy-five Dollars ($75.00) per week beginning as of the effective date of the Workers' Compensation Act (July 1, 1978), and Ninety Dollars ($90.00) per week beginning January 1, 1979, and One Hundred Ten Dollars ($110.00) per week beginning January 1, 1980, and to sixty-six and two-thirds percent (662/3%) of the state's average weekly wage beginning January 1, 1981 . . ."
The eligible survivors of the worker who died October 13, 1978, received, in the aggregate, a weekly income benefit award of $75.00 the rate for permanent total disability in effect at the time of decedent's death. 4 This rate, the trial tribunal ruled, was applicable in the case from the very inception to the termination of weekly benefit payments.
The sole question claimant presents on review is whether the quoted language in the provisions of § 22(6) should be construed as a schedule of benefits on a graduated scale or as a table of progressive rate increases with each level applicable, to the exclusion of all others, to injury or death occurring during the specific period for which it is fixed. We hold that the terms of § 22(6) afford no legislative authority for judicial application of benefit rates in excess of those prescribed by statute as a maximum in effect for the period during which injury or death occurs. The trial tribunal's order limiting the survivors' aggregate weekly income benefits to $75.00 the maximum rate in force when death took place is hence free from error of law.
The claim for benefits and the correlative duty to pay them are governed by the provisions of the law in effect when injury or death occurs. 5 It is at this point in time that the right becomes vested and the obligation is fixed. 6 The compensation rate to be applied in each case is that which was prescribed by statute for the period during which the compensable event injury or death takes place. 7 The rate so fixed governs not only the principal claim. It extends, with like force and effect, to ancillary proceedings on a change in a worker's condition and to those for increased compensation against the Special Indemnity Fund. 8 These basic compensation-law principles came to be settled by case law pronounced long before the passage of the 1977 Act. 9 The amendments of that year contain no incompatible or contradictory language. On the contrary, their provisions appear either consistent with, or expressly reconfirm, those prior decisions of this court which declare both the rights and obligations fixed as of the time of injury or death. 10
Legislative familiarity with extant judicial construction of statutes in the process of being amended is presumed. Unless a contrary intent clearly appears or is plainly expressed, the terms of amendatory acts which retain the same, or not substantially dissimilar, portions of provisions formerly in force will be accorded the construction identical to that placed upon them by preexisting case law. 11
On review of the pertinent part of § 22(6) here under construction we find no language or indication that would warrant a sharp break with our past pronouncements. The primary consideration in the judicial search to discover the correct meaning of a statute is the intent of the legislature. The purpose intended to be accomplished by the enactment "also claims a degree of consideration." 12 Any doubt about the meaning of a statute may be resolved by reference to its history. 13 Our review of the historical antecedents reveals that the 1977 revisions here before us reflect our legislature's response to the call of the National Commission on State Workmen's Compensation Laws 14 for a "gradual increase of benefits . . . with progressive increases designed to reach eventually a percentage of the state's average weekly wage, a figure which presumably would better reflect contemporary costs of living." 15 The terms of § 22(6), construed with the other 1977 amendments that govern benefit rates, unmistakably demonstrate legislative intent progressively to increase benefit levels for each identified annual period during which the injury or death may occur until the highest legislatively attainable rate is reached. 16 The obvious purpose in this approach was to cushion the economic impact of the increase by gradually raising compensation levels to that plateau both desired and reachable which was the closest to the National Commission's goal of replacing "a substantial amount of the injured worker's lost earnings." 17
We find no indication in the 1977 Act of any intent to depart from the long-standing legislative policy of applying, in compensation claims, a fixed-rate regime based on the level of benefits in effect when injury or death occurs. The trial tribunal's order is accordingly sustained.
1 85 O.S.Supp.1977 § 1; Okla.Sess.Laws 1977, Ch. 234 § 64. All section citations in the text of this opinion are to Title 85. The word "Act" is used in reference to the 1977 Workers' Compensation Act.
2 This term is used to designate weekly benefits to a worker's eligible survivors. 85 O.S.Supp.1977 § 22(8).
4 The last paragraph of 85 O.S.Supp.1977 § 3.6 D provides, inter alia, that ". . . benefits for death shall be determined by the law in effect at the time of death. (emphasis added)
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fenwick v. Oklahoma State Penitentiary, 69691
...out of and in the course of employment and such disease or infection as may naturally and unavoidably result therefrom.15 609 P.2d 1289, 1292 (Okla.1980).1 The Workers' Compensation Act, 85 O.S.1981 §§ 1 et seq.2 See Keeling v. State Industrial Court, Okl., 389 P.2d 487 (1964) (syllabus p 1......
-
Nealis v. Baird
...1985 OK 28, ¶ 6, 698 P.2d 930, 932; Riffe Petroleum Co. v. Great Nat. Corp., Inc., 1980 OK 112, ¶ 7, 614 P.2d 576, 579; Lekan v. P & L Fire Protection Co., 1980 OK 56, ¶ 6, 609 P.2d 1289, 1292; Midwest City v. Harris, 1977 OK 7, ¶ 6, 561 P.2d 1357, 109. TXO Production Corp. supra, note 105 ......
-
Davis v. Davis
... ... , owes allegiance to the government of his country and, conversely, is entitled to the protection of that government, both in his person as well as property. 16 ... Before the ... In Lekan ... Page 1123 ... v. P & L Fire Protection Co., 609 P.2d 1289, 1292 (Okla.1980), the Court ... ...
-
Throneberry v. Wright
...P.2d 898, 899 (any doubt as to the meaning of a statute may be resolved by reference to its history), citing Lekan v. P & L Fire Protection Co. , 1980 OK 56, 609 P.2d 1289, 1292.38 See , e.g. , In re Guardianship of Stanfield , 2012 OK 8, ¶¶ 12-20, 276 P.3d 989, 994-999 (discussion of 1924 ......