• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
 
Fr!-Em
FEBseo0g
-'f+Hg}ffii"'H[f,kTi^3f?ffi$"Ttus$Jfrnffieou
PONCARON& METAL,INC.,owN RISK #11794,
INTr{ECOURTOFCIVIL APPEALSOFTr{ESTAIEOFOKl,Ar*gb,rdb
'SYII,olpxiitr
FEBBZOOg
MICHAEL"RICHIEw.c. c.{l2006-9565x
Case o. 106,164JACKIEWILKINSON and THEWORKBRS'COMPENSATIONCOURT,Respondents.PROCEEDINGTO REVIEWANORDEROFTI{EWORKERS'COMPENSATIONCOURTHONORABLECI{ERRI MRRA& JUDGESUSTAINEDR.DeanLott,LarryC.Brawner,BRAWNERLAWOFFICE,OklahomaCity, Oklahoma"For Petitioner,JamesG Devinney,PoncaCity, OklahomgPetitioner,vs.
ForRespondents.
 
OPINIONBYROBERTDICKBELL,PRESIDINGUDGE:TlPetitioner,Poncaon&Metal,Inc.@mployer)seeks eviewofanorderoftheWorkersoCompensationCowtawardingRespondent,ackieWilkinson(Claimant),temporaryotal disability(TTD)benefitsandmedicalcareanddenyingEmployer'sstatuteof limitationsdefense.Thetrial court'sorder s sustained.ltLClaimant'sobdutieswith Employerencompassedontinuouscomputerkeyboarduseand iling.Heremploymentwaserminated nDecember18,2005.On August 18, 2006,Claimantileda Fonn3 alleging she sustainedumulativetrauma njuries(carpalunnelsyndrome)o both handsandarmswitha dateof lastexposurenDecember18,2005.Employerdenied eceivingpropernoticeof theclaimandhat he njuryaroseoutof or inthe course f Claimant'smployment.naddition,Employerassertedlaimant'slaimwasbared for failweto filethe claimwithin thesix monthstatutoryimeperiodset orthat 85 O.S.Supp.200543(A).1[3Thetrial court foundClaimantsustained work-relatednjurytoherleft andright handand left arm arisingoutof and in the courseof her employnentwithEmployer.The court furtherfoundClaimantwas entitled tomedical reatnentandtemporaryotal disability(TTD)benefitsrom August 13,2006,andcontinuing,notto exceed ifty-two(52)weeks. Employerappealedhe ordero a three-judgeanelof theWorkers' CompensationCourt(Panel)which affrmed thefiial court'sorder,
 
withone modificationto theinterestrate.Employerthensoughtreviewby theappellatecourt.TheCourt ofCivilAppeals,Division 2,in AppellateCaseNo.104,690unpublishedpinion),eversednd emandedhecase othe rial courtwithinstructionsoaddresshe statuteof limitationsdefense.On remandohe trialcourtdeniedEmployer'sstatute f limitationsdefenseolding hissection'tnreasonablysinglesoutemployeeswho havebeenerminatedand havesustainedcumulativetraumanjuries.The law isindirectconflict withthegeneralwoyearstatuteoflimitationsforcumulative raumanjuriesandarbitarilyputsanunfair burdenontheseclaimants." Employernowseeks eviewof this order.14Employerargues hetial courterred in denyingits statuteof limitationsdefense ecause43(A)clearly barsClaimantromany recoveryor her allegedwork-relatednjrniessinceher claimwas not filed withinsix monthsof the dateofher enninationrom emplolmrent.This raisesan ssueofstatutoryconstructionandthuspresentsquestionof law.Weeviewquestionsf lawde novo.Conaghanu.RiveffieldCountryDay5ch.,2007OK 60,17,163P.3d557,560.Undera de novoreview,his Court hasplenary,ndependentndnon-deferentialuthority o addresslegalssues. Id.tT5Section43(A)provides:
A. The rightto claimcompensation under the
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...