 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Celestica Inc. v. Hines12/18/2003
establishes that such disability resulted from causal conditions at two or more places of successive employment. Smith v. Workers' Compensation Court, 618 P.2d 942 (Okl.1980). The substantive nature of the rule assigns liability between successive employers. The rule also relieves the employee from proving specific medical causation as to any particular employer or insurance carrier of those potentially liable for the disability. Thus, the last employment that bears a causal relation to that disability, i.e. by providing some potentially causal conditions or contributory exposure, is deemed to have caused the disease, even though the employee has not proved the last employment was the actual cause of the disability.
Id. at 683. The Parks court then distinguished accidental injuries, including cumulative trauma cases, which it found were not governed by the last exposure doctrine. Id. Accordingly, we find no support for Celestica's argument that the last exposure rule is unconstitutional. And, as noted above, the amendment of §11 to add §11(B)(5) shows a legislative intent to alter the holdings in Parks, Rankin and other cases which declined to apply the last exposure rule to cumulative trauma cases.
Celestica has not challenged the trial court's factual findings. We have found no error of law in the court's application of the provisions of 85 O.S.2001 §11(B)(5) to make Celestica solely liable for Hines's cumulative trauma injury where Celestica was the employer for at least 90 days during which time Hines was last exposed to the work-related harm. Accordingly, the order of the Workers' Compensation Court is SUSTAINED.
ADAMS, P.J., and JOPLIN, C.J., concur.
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.
|
|