Schlumberger Tech. Corp. v. Erasmo Paredes & the Workers' Comp. Comm'n

• Docket Number: Case No. 120,197
• Decision Date: 18 April 2023
• Citation: 528 P.3d 772
• Parties: SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY CORP. and Travelers Indemnity Co. of America, Petitioners, v. Erasmo PAREDES and the Workers' Compensation Commission, Respondents.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

528 P.3d 772

SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY CORP. and Travelers Indemnity Co. of America, Petitioners,

v.Erasmo PAREDES and the Workers' Compensation Commission, Respondents.

Case No. 120,197

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

Filed: April 18, 2023

Loretta A. Jones, Ayik & Associates, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Petitioners Schlumberger Technology Corp. and Travelers Indemnity Co. of America.

Bob Burke, Joey Chiaf, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Respondent Erasmo Paredes.

Gurich, J.:

Facts & Procedural History

¶1 Erasmo Paredes sustained an on-the-job injury on December 29, 2019. He continued working for his employer, Schlumberger, until January 30, 2020. His employer's insurance carrier, Travelers Indemnity Company of America, provided voluntary medical treatment to Paredes from January 3, 2020, through February 14, 2020. Paredes's CC-Form 3 Claim for Compensation was filed on December 3, 2020, alleging an injury date of December 29, 2019. This claim was filed ten months after Paredes's last medical treatment, but within one year from the date of his injury. Travelers's counsel entered an appearance in the Workers' Compensation case on December 22, 2020. On February 18, 2021, the affidavit of Travelers's claims handler was filed with attachments indicating Travelers provided medical treatment to Paredes in the total amount of $1,371.47. No disability benefits were paid. On the same date, counsel for Travelers filed the CC-Form 10 Answer and Notice of Contested Issues on behalf of Schlumberger raising the defense of statute of limitations pursuant to Section 69(A)(1) of Title 85A.¹ Schlumberger also denied compensable injuries , alleged pre-existing conditions pursuant to 85A O.S. Supp. 2019, § 2(9)(b)(6), and denied benefits .

¶2 A hearing solely on the issue of the statute of limitations defense was held before an administrative law judge on April 29, 2021. Prior to the hearing, both parties submitted trial briefs. The ALJ issued an order that was filed on May 13, 2021, concluding that Paredes's claim was not barred by Section 69(A)(1). In the order, the ALJ stated: "It is the Commission's finding that in this case, the word ‘or’ is used to express alternative statutes of limitations, with claimant receiving the benefit of whichever of those is longer."² Schlumberger appealed to the Workers' Compensation Commission ("Commission"), and the parties filed written arguments. Oral argument before the Commission was held on January 14, 2022. The Commission, sitting en banc, affirmed the Decision of the ALJ by order filed January 18, 2022.³ Schlumberger has appealed to this Court seeking review of the Commission's interpretation of 85A O.S. Supp. 2019, § 69(A)(1).

Standard of Review

¶3 Title 85, Section 78(C) states:

The judgment, decision or award of the Commission shall be final and conclusive on all questions within its jurisdiction between the parties unless an action is commenced in the Supreme Court of this state to review the judgment, decision or award within twenty (20) days of being sent to the parties. Any judgment, decision or award made by an administrative law judge shall be stayed until all appeal rights have been waived or exhausted. The Supreme Court may modify, reverse, remand for rehearing, or set aside the judgment or award only if it was:

1. In violation of constitutional provisions;

2. In excess of the statutory authority or jurisdiction of the Commission;

3. Made on unlawful procedure;

4. Affected by other error of law; 5. Clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, material, probative and substantial competent evidence;

6. Arbitrary or capricious;

7. Procured by fraud; or

8. Missing findings of fact on issues essential to the decision.

85A O.S. Supp. 2019, § 78(C). The issue presented in this case is an issue of statutory interpretation. Statutory interpretation presents a question of law which we review de novo. Maxwell v. Sprint PCS , 2016 OK 41, ¶ 4, 369 P.3d 1079, 1083. Such review is plenary, independent, and non-deferential. Id.

Analysis

¶4 The duties and obligations of employees and employers are set forth in the Administrative Workers' Compensation Act ("AWCA"). Title 85A, Section 3(A) provides:

Every employer and every employee, unless otherwise specifically provided in this act, shall be subject and bound to the provisions of the Administrative Workers' Compensation Act and every employer shall pay or provide benefits according to the provisions of this act for the accidental injury or death of an employee arising out of and in the course of his or her employment, without regard to fault for such injury, if the employee's contract of employment was made or if the injury occurred within this state. ... [T]he employee's right to bring a claim under this act shall be subject to the limitations period for bringing a claim pursuant to paragraph 1 of subsection A of Section 69 of this title.

85A O.S. Supp. 2019, § 3(A). The AWCA also dictates when a claim for workers' compensation benefits must be filed. Title 85A, Section 69 states:

A. Time for Filing.

1. A claim for benefits under this act, other than an occupational disease, shall be barred unless it is filed with the Workers' Compensation Commission within one (1) year from the date of the injury or, if the employee has received benefits under this title for the injury, six (6) months from the date of the last issuance of such benefits. For purposes of this section, the date of the injury shall be defined as the date an injury is caused by an accident as set forth in paragraph 9 of Section 2 of this title.

2. a. A claim for compensation for disability on account of injury which is either an occupational disease or occupational infection shall be barred unless filed with the Commission within two (2) years from the date of the last injurious exposure to the hazards of the disease or infection.

b. A claim for compensation for disability on account of silicosis or asbestosis

shall be filed with the Commission within one (1) year after the time of disablement, and the disablement shall occur within three (3) years from the date of the last injurious exposure to the hazard of silicosis or asbestosis.

c. A claim for compensation for disability on account of a disease condition caused by exposure to X-rays, radioactive substances, or ionizing radiation only shall be filed with the Commission within two (2) years from the date the condition is made known to an employee following examination and diagnosis by a medical doctor.

3. A claim for compensation on account of death shall be barred unless filed with the Commission within two (2) years of the date of such a death.

4. If a claim for benefits has been timely filed under paragraph 1 of this subsection and the employee does not:

a. make a good-faith request for a hearing to resolve a dispute regarding the right to receive benefits, including medical treatment, under this title within six (6) months of the date the claim is filed, or

b. receive or seek benefits, including medical treatment, under this title for a period of six (6) months, then on motion by the employer, the claim shall be dismissed with prejudice.

B. Failure to File. Failure to file a claim within the period prescribed in subsection A of this section shall not be a bar to the right to benefits hereunder unless objection to the failure is made at the first hearing on the claim in which all parties in interest have been given a reasonable notice

and opportunity to be heard by the Commission.

C. Persons under Disability.

1. Notwithstanding any statute of limitation provided for in this act, when it is established that failure to file a claim by an injured employee or his or her dependents was induced by fraud, the claim may be filed within one (1) year from the time of the discovery of the fraud.

2. Subsection A of this section shall not apply to a mental incompetent or minor so long as the person has no guardian or similar legal representative. The limitations prescribed in subsection A of this section shall apply to the mental incompetent or minor from the date of the appointment of a guardian or similar legal representative for that person, and when no guardian or similar representative has been appointed, to a minor on reaching the age of majority.

D. A latent injury or condition shall not delay or toll the limitation periods specified in this section. This subsection shall not apply to the limitation period for occupational diseases specified in paragraph 2 of subsection A of this section.

85A O.S. Supp. 2019, § 69.

¶5 Schlumberger asks the Court to construe Section 69(A)(1) to mean that claimant has either one year from the date of injury or six months from the date of the last issuance of benefits, whichever is lesser . Schlumberger admits it made benefit payments without admitting compensability of the claim, gave no notice to Paredes of the last date benefits were paid to a medical provider, and then argues Paredes is prevented from filing his claim within the one year provided in the statute. Paredes asks us to affirm the Commission's construction that a claimant must file within one year from the date of injury or six months from the date of the last issuance of benefits, whichever is greater, recognizing the lack of notice would create potential constitutional issues.

I. The Commission's interpretation of Section 69 is consistent with the Legislative intent.

a. Legislative history of Section 69.

¶6 To ascertain the legislative intent behind Section 69, we first look at the history of the section to determine if it has a prior statutory construction which may be applicable. If there is a prior construction, "[u]nless a contrary intent clearly appears or is plainly expressed, the terms of amendatory acts retaining the same or substantially similar language as the provisions formerly in force will be accorded the identical construction to that placed upon them by preexisting case law." Maxwell v. Sprint PCS , 2016 OK 41, ¶ 6, 369 P.3d 1079, 1085.

¶7 Here, the...