Thomas v. Burggraf Restoration, No. 95541.
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma |
| Writing for the Court | RAPP. |
| Citation | 2001 OK CIV APP 110,31 P.3d 402 |
| Decision Date | 07 August 2001 |
| Docket Number | No. 95541. |
| Parties | Esther THOMAS, Petitioner, v. BURGGRAF RESTORATION, State Insurance Fund and The Workers' Compensation Court, Respondents. |
31 P.3d 402
2001 OK CIV APP 110
v.
BURGGRAF RESTORATION, State Insurance Fund and The Workers' Compensation Court, Respondents
No. 95541.
Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 4.
August 7, 2001.
James E. Lowell, Tulsa, OK, for Petitioner.
Candace Johnson, Tulsa, OK, for Respondents.
Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 4.
¶ 1 Claimant, Esther Thomas, appeals an order of a three-judge panel partially vacating the trial court's order and sustaining the motion to terminate temporary total disability benefits of Employer, Burggraff Restoration, Inc.
BACKGROUND
¶ 2 It is undisputed that Claimant sustained a work-related injury to her right leg (knee) and left leg (knee) on April 1, 1998, while employed by Employer. Employer commenced payment of temporary total disability on approximately June 8, 1998. The trial court appointed an independent medical examiner, Dr. James Griffin, on September 22, 1998, to determine whether Claimant was temporarily totally disabled and needed additional medical treatment, and to make recommendations regarding treatment.
¶ 3 Dr. Griffin opined in his November 3, 1998, medical report that Claimant was temporarily totally disabled and in need of additional medical treatment. He also noted that she had a mass on her right thigh but was uncertain as to its origin. Dr. Griffin began treating Claimant and determined she was in need of arthroscopic surgery. During the preoperative tests, the hematologist determined Claimant had thrombocytopenia or a low platelet count. Dr. Griffin postponed the scheduled knee surgery on August 26, 1999, because of this medical condition and stated in his August 26, 1999, notes that once the hematologist "feels it is safe to go ahead with surgery, we will plan on going ahead with arthroscopy at that point."
¶ 4 Claimant had at least four office visits with Dr. Griffin after the August 26, 1999, examination.
¶ 5 Employer filed its Form 11, Motion to Terminate Temporary Compensation, as required by Rule 15(C)(1), of the Workers' Compensation Court Rules, 85 O.S. Supp. 2000, ch. 4, app., on August 28, 2000, stating
¶ 6 After a hearing on June 27, 2000, the trial court determined Claimant was still temporarily totally disabled and sustained Claimant's objection to Employer's motion to terminate temporary total disability benefits. The trial court reserved the issue of permanent disability, if any, for a future hearing. The trial court also ordered Employer to provide Claimant with the necessary medical care and treatment to her right leg (knee) and left leg (knee), including surgery. The trial court also held that Employer was not responsible for the medical expenses associated with Claimant's thrombocytopenia or the cyst on her right thigh.1
¶ 7 Employer appealed to a three-judge panel, asserting an intervening injury and treatment for an unrelated condition. The three-judge panel found that the part of the trial court's order continuing temporary total disability was contrary to law and against the clear weight of the evidence. The three-judge panel modified the trial court's order; it sustained Employer's motion to terminate temporary total disability benefits because "claimant was not able to receive medical treatment to improve her physical condition beginning AUGUST 26, 1999 due to an idiopathic condition unrelated to the injury of APRIL 1, 1998." The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Yeatman v. Northern Oklahoma Resource Center of Enid, No. 98951
...there was no medical evidence to support TTD's termination on 26 April 1999. 14. Thomas v. Burggraf Restoration, 2001 OK CIV APP 110, 31 P.3d 402. 15. For the terms of § 22.2(b) see supra note 16. (COCA opinion, p. 4) The record shows only one request by Yeatman for 52 weeks of additional T......
-
Brockel v. N. Dakota Workforce Safety & Ins., No. 20130166.
...Schock v. Morristown Mem'l Hosp./Atlantic Health Sys., 2010 WL 2793949 *6 (N.J.Super.A.D. July 2, 2010); Thomas v. Burggraf Restoration, 31 P.3d 402, 405 (Okla.Ct.Civ.App.2001); Workmen's Comp. Appeal Bd. v. Chamberlain Mfg. Corp., 18 Pa.Cmwlth. 572, 336 A.2d 659, 662 (1975); Orr v. Elastom......
-
Manning v. STATE EX REL. DPS, No. 98,622.
...here are not in dispute and therefore this case presents a question of law. Thomas v. Burggraf Restoration, 2001 OK CIV APP 110, ¶ 8, 31 P.3d 402, 404. The appellate court's role is to define the law; therefore, it independently reviews questions of law. Rhea v. Southwest Cupid, 1998 OK CIV......
-
Schock v. Morristown Mem'l Hosp./atl. Health Sys., DOCKET NO. A-1658-09T2
...conditions, the claimant was entitled to continued disability benefits during the entire period. See Thomas v. Burggraf Restoration, 31 P.3d 402, 405 (Okla. Civ. App. 2001) (the employer was required to continue paying total temporary disability benefits while the claimant's surgery was del......
-
Yeatman v. Northern Oklahoma Resource Center of Enid, No. 98951
...there was no medical evidence to support TTD's termination on 26 April 1999. 14. Thomas v. Burggraf Restoration, 2001 OK CIV APP 110, 31 P.3d 402. 15. For the terms of § 22.2(b) see supra note 16. (COCA opinion, p. 4) The record shows only one request by Yeatman for 52 weeks of additional T......
-
Brockel v. N. Dakota Workforce Safety & Ins., No. 20130166.
...Schock v. Morristown Mem'l Hosp./Atlantic Health Sys., 2010 WL 2793949 *6 (N.J.Super.A.D. July 2, 2010); Thomas v. Burggraf Restoration, 31 P.3d 402, 405 (Okla.Ct.Civ.App.2001); Workmen's Comp. Appeal Bd. v. Chamberlain Mfg. Corp., 18 Pa.Cmwlth. 572, 336 A.2d 659, 662 (1975); Orr v. Elastom......
-
Manning v. STATE EX REL. DPS, No. 98,622.
...here are not in dispute and therefore this case presents a question of law. Thomas v. Burggraf Restoration, 2001 OK CIV APP 110, ¶ 8, 31 P.3d 402, 404. The appellate court's role is to define the law; therefore, it independently reviews questions of law. Rhea v. Southwest Cupid, 1998 OK CIV......
-
Schock v. Morristown Mem'l Hosp./atl. Health Sys., DOCKET NO. A-1658-09T2
...conditions, the claimant was entitled to continued disability benefits during the entire period. See Thomas v. Burggraf Restoration, 31 P.3d 402, 405 (Okla. Civ. App. 2001) (the employer was required to continue paying total temporary disability benefits while the claimant's surgery was del......