 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Celestica Inc. v. Hines12/18/2003
Mandate Issued: 02/27/2004
Petitioners Celestica Inc. and The Hartford Insurance Company of the Midwest (Celestica) seek review of an order of the Workers' Compensation Court which found that Respondent Phyllis G. Hines had sustained a work-related cumulative trauma injury and ordered Celestica, as Hines's last employer for more than 90 days, to pay all of the compensation award. Celestica asserts that the trial court should have apportioned liability for compensation between it and Respondent Lucent Technologies (Lucent). Because we find the trial court correctly applied the statutory provision for determining liability between subsequent employers, we sustain its order.
In her Form 3 filed February 18, 2003, Hines asserted that she suffered cumulative trauma injuries to the hands, arms, and shoulders while employed by Lucent and Celestica. Hines listed November 2001 as the date of last exposure, but indicated the injury was aggravated in April 2002. Celestica filed its Form 10 March 29, 2003, in which it denied that Hines had sustained an injury arising out of and in the course of her employment.
Trial was held May 7, 2003, and the Workers' Compensation Court issued its Order May 16, 2003. In its Order, the court found that Hines had sustained cumulative trauma injuries to the left hand, left thumb, left arm, right arm, left shoulder, and neck arising out of and in the course of her employment. The court ordered temporary total disability from March 15, 2003 and continuing. Pertinent to this review proceeding, the court found that Hines worked for Lucent from the time Lucent took over the plant from A.T.&T; in 1996 and continuing until December 1, 2001. The court found that Hines sustained cumulative trauma to the body parts listed throughout that period of time. The court further found that Hines worked for Celestica from December 1, 2001 to March 14, 2003 and that she sustained cumulative trauma to the body parts listed throughout that period of time as well. The court noted that 85 O.S.2001 §11(B)(5) provides that in cumulative trauma cases, "the last employer in whose employment the employee was last injuriously exposed to the trauma during a period of a least ninety (90) days or more . . . shall alone be liable therefor, without right of contribution from any prior employer . . . ." The court therefore concluded that Celestica was liable for all the benefits awarded. The court denied Celestica's argument that Section 11(B)(5) was inapplicable in this case. The court also denied Celestica's assertion that application of Section 11(B)(5) would result in a miscarriage of justice.
Decisions of fact made by the Workers' Compensation Court will be sustained if they are supported by competent evidence. Parks v. Norman Municipal Hospital, 1984 OK 53, 684 P.2d 548. In this case the parties have not challenged the court's factual findings. Instead, Celestica has raised a legal challenge to the applicability of §11(B)(5). We review the Workers' Compensation Court's decisions on issues of law de novo. B.E.&K; Const. v. Abbott, 2002 OK 75, 59 P.3d 38, n.1.
In this review proceeding, Celestica challenges the application of 85 O.S.2001 §11(B)(5). That subsection provides:
B. Liability of any person, firm, or corporation having an interest in the subject matter, employers and contracting employers, general or intermediate, for compensation under the Workers' Compensation Act, when other than the immediate employer of the injured employee, shall be as follows:
5. Where compensation is payable for an injury resulting from cumulative trauma, the last employer in whose employment the employee was last injuriously expos
Page 1 2 3 4 Oklahoma Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|