R & R Trucking, Inc. v. Vinson
| Decision Date | 17 December 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 76517,No. 1,76517,1 |
| Citation | 822 P.2d 690 |
| Parties | 1991 OK CIV APP 128 R & R TRUCKING, INC., and CNA Insurance, Petitioners, v. Don VINSON, and the Workers' Compensation Court, Respondents. Court of Appeals of Oklahoma, Division |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma |
Gary Bova, Pierce, Couch, Hendrickson, Johnston & Baysinger, Oklahoma City, for petitioners.
John Morris Williams, Krasnow & Williams, Oklahoma City, for respondents.
Petitioners R & R Trucking, Inc. and CNA Insurance (collectively Employer) seek review of an order of the Workers' Compensation Court sitting en banc directing payment of interest on accrued portions of an award of permanent total disability (PTD) to Respondent Don Vinson (Claimant). Herein, Employer asserts error in so ordering payment of interest.
Claimant sustained severe on-the-job injuries in 1987, for which, by order dated November 28, 1988, the Trial Court awarded Claimant benefits for PTD, and directed payment of accrued PTD in the sum of $7,269.50 "less tax and attorney fees and less credit due" Employer. The Trial Court allowed Employer this "credit" for overpayment of benefits for temporary total disability (TTD) in the sum of $1,302.00 to be deducted "from the latter end of the award." Employer appealed to the Court en banc, which affirmed.
Employer then commenced an action for review in the Supreme Court, styled R & R Trucking, Inc. v. Vinson, and assigned Case No. 73,245. On assignment of Case No. 73,245 to this Court, the Court of Appeals, Division I, affirmed that part of the lower court's order adjudicating Claimant's PTD, but found that part of the lower court's order allowing credit for overpayment "from the latter end" of the PTD award to constitute "no deduction" at all, vacated that part of the order, and remanded the cause "for the limited purpose of clarification as to when the [Employer] may deduct its awarded credit for overpayment of [TTD] from [Claimant's] [PTD] payments." 1 The Supreme Court denied Employer's petition for certiorari to review the Court of Appeals' opinion in Case No. 73,245 on September 18, 1990.
On remand by order dated October 4, 1990, the Workers' Compensation Court en banc entered its "Order on Mandate," directing Employer "to pay interest on the accrued portion of said award at the rate of 18% per year from the date of the award." On October 24, Employer commenced the instant action for review, 2 and asserts herein (1) the lower court erred in awarding interest from the date of the award under 85 O.S.1981 § 3.6, 3 Employer having prevailed in obtaining "modification" of the award, and (2) because interest may not be awarded upon Employer's successful action for "modification" under § 3.6, the Workers' Compensation Court's exceeded its jurisdiction in ordering payment of interest. 4
Under the facts and circumstances of this case, we find no error nor excess of jurisdiction by the Workers' Compensation Court in assessing interest against Employer from the date of the award. In that regard, we read § 3.6 as imposing interest on funds to which Claimant has been adjudicated entitled, but otherwise withheld by the employer and/or the employer's insurance carrier, and to the extent Claimant's award remains undisturbed on appeal, we find Claimant entitled to interest thereon. We therefore hold § 3.6 proscribes assessment of interest only (1) where the award is "vacated" in toto on appeal, or (2) on that portion of the award "modified" on appeal. Thus, in the present case, Employer should be held liable for interest on that part of Claimant's award, but only on that part of the accrued portion of the award after adjustment for Employer's overpayment of temporary total disability, and the Trial Court so held.
The order of the Workers' Compensation Court sitting en banc assessing interest from the date of the award is therefore SUSTAINED.
1 R & R Trucking, Inc. v. Vinson, No. 73,245 (Okl.App., Div. I, April 24, 1990) (unpub. op. by Hunter, V.C.J.), at pp. 3-4.
2 The parties also suggest in their briefs that after issuance of the "Order on Mandate" by the Court en banc, the Trial Court held a supplemental hearing on the "credit for overpayment" issue pursuant to the directions on remand, that "on January 4, 1991, the [Trial Court] issued an 'Order on Remand,' holding in abeyance the question of interest due to the pendency of this appeal," and that "due to the date of issuance of the Order on Remand from the trial court, [the trial court's order] was not designated as part of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial