Mertz, Inc. v. Gulley
| Decision Date | 29 March 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 59308,No. 4,59308,4 |
| Citation | 1983 OK CIV APP 18,663 P.2d 753 |
| Parties | 1983 OK CIV APP 18 MERTZ, INC., and Commercial Union Assurance, Petitioners, v. Terry Wayne GULLEY and The Workers' Compensation Court of the State of Oklahoma, Respondents |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma |
Petitioners seek review of Workers' Compensation Court order overruling demurrer to employee's claim based on statute of limitations.
AFFIRMED.
Paul V. McGivern, Jr., McGivern, Scott, Gilliard & McGivern, Tulsa, for petitioners.
J. Clark Russell, Russell, Payne & Farber, Oklahoma City, for respondents.
This is a worker's compensation case wherein respondent seeks review of a decision of the Workers' Compensation Court finding claimant's case was not barred by the statute of limitations. We affirm.
Claimant, Terry Wayne Gulley, was employed by respondent Mertz, Inc., and on March 11, 1980, he sustained a work related injury to his back while off-loading bumpers from a pallet. He reported the injury to his employer, was paid compensation and provided medical treatment. On March 25, 1980, the employer filed with the Workers' Compensation Court a form 2, Employer's First Notice of Injury, indicating employer had been notified by employee of a job related back injury. Claimant returned to work approximately three weeks after the injury, and last received medical treatment provided by the employer approximately three weeks after his return to work.
Claimant's testimony, however, established that he continued to have problems with his back, and on June 2, 1982, the claimant filed his form 3 in the Workers' Compensation Court, formally initiating his worker's compensation claim. The case was heard by the court on October 19, 1982, resulting in a finding of permanent partial disability and an award of compensation.
The respondents appeal, claiming that the trial judge erred in overruling their statute of limitations defense raised by demurrer. They allege the court erred in holding that the filing of the form 2 by the employer tolled the statute of limitations.
Respondents recognize a considerable body of case law holding, as did the judge, that the employer's filing of a form 2 tolls the statute of limitations. We are asked to overrule certain cases that so hold, including: Oklahoma Natural Gas Corp. v. Craig, 193 Okl. 56, 139 P.2d 181 (1942) and Robinson v. State Industrial Commission, 176 Okl. 619, 56 P.2d 826 (1936). We decline to do so. The raison d'etre of this rule of law is still extant today. The reasoning given in the "bedrock" case of Steffens Ice Cream Co. v. Jarvis, 132 Okl. 300, 270 P. 1103 (1928), is still pertinent. The court there stated:
We agree with respondent's contention that there must be some limitation to claims filed after the filing of a form 2 by employer. We think such a limitation exists today. The Oklahoma Legislature in 1953 amended 85 O.S. § 43 to include a five year limitation on the "prosecution" of formally filed claims. When claimant has formally filed his claim, he must, in good faith, request a hearing and final determination within five years or his claim is barred.
This statute bars claims that have become stale after invoking the jurisdiction of the Workers' Compensation Court. Its obvious intention is to provide for the expeditious "prosecution" of claims once the jurisdiction of the court has been...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
White v. Weyerhaeuser Co.
...Compensation Court. Kyseth v. St. John Medical Center, 740 P.2d 174, 176 (Okl.Ct.App., Div. 4, 1987); Mertz, Inc. v. Gulley, 663 P.2d 753, 754-755 (Okl.Ct.App., Div. 4, 1983) (dicta). The Court of Appeals in Mertz used the following language to describe the The Oklahoma Legislature in 1953 ......
-
Knott v. Halliburton Services
...694 P.2d 932, 936 (Okl.1985), Oklahoma Natural Gas Corp. v. Craig, 193 Okl. 56, 139 P.2d 181, 182 (1942), and see: Mertz, Inc. v. Gulley, 663 P.2d 753, 754 (Okl.App.1983).2 Apple v. State Insurance Fund, 540 P.2d 545, 547 (Okl.1975).3 Caswell v. Bird, 160 Okl. 224, 16 P.2d 859 (1932), Weber......
-
Ford Roofing & Sheet Metal Company v. Venegas, 2004 OK CIV APP 76 (OK 9/24/2004)
...of limitations. ¶7 We have found no Oklahoma case addressing this issue. We analogize this issue to the holding in Mertz, Inc. v. Gulley, 1983 OK CIV APP 18, 663 P.2d 753, which addressed the provision under §43(B) for the court to dismiss a workers' compensation claim for lack of In that c......
-
Pickett v. Oklahoma Dept. of Human Services
...held to have waived the right to insist on the timely initial commencement of a workers compensation claim. See, e.g., Mertz, Inc. v. Gulley, 663 P.2d 753 (Okla.App.1983); Cinderella Motor Hotel, Inc. v. Wallace, 506 P.2d 556 (Okla.1973). In that regard, Claimant cites, and we find, no Okla......