Special Indem. Fund v. Carlile, 87572
| Decision Date | 14 January 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. 87572,No. 1,87572,1 |
| Citation | 1997 OK CIV APP 14,939 P.2d 26 |
| Parties | 1997 OK CIV APP 14 SPECIAL INDEMNITY FUND, Petitioner, v. Oca Mae CARLILE and the Workers' Compensation Court, Respondents. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma |
The sole question presented for our review is whether Oca Mae Carlile's workers' compensation claim against the Special Indemnity Fund was barred by the statute of limitations. The Workers' Compensation Court found that the claim was timely filed. We agree and sustain the order.
Physically impaired workers who sustain additional disabilities on the job, and for whom the resulting disability is materially greater than that which would have resulted from the additional injury alone, receive workers' compensation benefits for the amount of their full disability. The employer, however, is only liable for the additional injury. The Special Indemnity Fund, after the employer has paid those benefits for which he is liable, pays the remainder of the compensation. 85 O.S. 1991 § 172. 1
On May 22, 1991, Carlile, a previously injured physically impaired person, filed a Form 3 "Employee's First Notice of Accidental Injury and Claim for Compensation." She alleged repetitive trauma injury to her spine resulting from her work as a utility person in a clothing manufacture factory and claimed that the last occurrence of trauma was on April 2, 1991. This claim was resolved by joint petition May 18, 1992 in the amount of $12,000.00. On September 18, 1995, Carlile notified the Special Indemnity Fund of her claim for permanent total disability. The Fund answered and raised the statute of limitations as an affirmative defense.
After trial, the Workers' Compensation Court found that Carlile's claim was not barred by the statute of limitations and ordered the Special Indemnity Fund to begin weekly payments in the amount of $161.54 for five years or until Carlile attained age 65, whichever came later. A unanimous three-judge panel affirmed the order, except as to attorney fees.
A claim for injury caused by repeated trauma causally connected with employment may be filed within two years of the last exposure to the trauma. 85 O.S. 1991 § 43(A). 2 Because Carlile filed her claim within two months of the last exposure to her repetitive trauma, she timely filed her claim. The claim identified her as having pre-existing disabilities.
There is no proof in the record, however, that the Special Indemnity Fund knew of the claim until September 1995, more than four years after the filing of the claim. That is not, however, determinative. The Special Indemnity Fund argues that 85 O.S. Ch. 4, App., Workers'...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Multiple Injury Trust Fund v. Wade
...the claim to request a hearing thereon under Reynolds v. Special Indemnity Fund, 1986 OK 64, 725 P.2d 1265, and Special Indemnity Fund v. Carlile, 1997 OK CIV APP 14, 939 P.2d 26. The Fund and the claimant submitted medical reports on the issue of material increase in disability and the Fun......
-
Loftis v. Multiple Injury Trust Fund
...bar of limitations as to a claim for compensation, also will serve to preserve the claim against the Fund." Special Indem. Fund v. Carlile, 1997 OK CIV APP 14, 939 P.2d 26 (Approved for Publication by the Supreme Court), quoting from Special Indemnity Fund v. Hulse, 1967 OK 219, 441 P.2d ...
-
Stenhouse v. Multiple Injury Trust Fund
...under 85 O.S. Section 43(B)(1998 Supp.), the Court finds that this defense is SUSTAINED. As recognized in the Court of Civil Appeals in Carlile, "the only protection the [Special Fund has against delayed claims is the requirement that claimant diligently prosecute the claim. 85 O.S. § 43(B)......
-
Autry v. Multiple Injury Trust Fund, 94,919.
...number. A timely filed Form 3 claim for benefits against the employer is deemed timely as to the Fund. Special Indem. Fund v. Carlile, 939 P.2d 26 (Okla.Ct.Civ.App.1997) (approved for publication by order of the Supreme 5. Today's holding makes it unnecessary to address Claimant's assertion......