 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Dean v. Multiple Injury Trust Fund12/23/2002
Mandate Issued: 04/10/2003
__ P.3d __
REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
The trial court petitioners, Jerry D. Dean and James H. Pilkington (Petitioners), appeal the decision of the Three-Judge Panel of the Workers' Compensation Court in favor of The Multiple Injury Trust Fund (MITF) deciding that a judgment against the MITF cannot be certified to District Court because of the ban imposed by 85 O.S. Supp. 2002, ยง 42(A).
BACKGROUND
Petitioners have unpaid awards against MITF and desire to certify the award to the District Court. The workers' compensation trial judge declined to certify based upon the exception in favor of MITF given in Section 42(A). The Three-Judge Panel affirmed. Petitioners appeal urging that the statute may be construed in their favor, or alternatively, that if the statute does exempt MITF from its scope, then the statute suffers constitutional infirmities.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Where the facts are not disputed an appeal presents only a question of law. Baptist Bldg. Corp. v. Barnes, 1994 OK CIV APP 71, , 874 P.2d 68, 69. The appellate court has the plenary, independent and nondeferential authority to re-examine a trial court's legal rulings. Neil Acquisition, L.L.C. v. Wingrod Investment Corp., 1996 OK 125, 932 P.2d 1100 n.1. If an appeal asserts a violation of constitutional rights, the appellate court will exercise its own independent judgment, if it becomes necessary to determine the constitutional question. Ranola Oil Co. v. Corporation Commission of Oklahoma, 1988 OK 28, , 752 P.2d 1116, 1118. Matters involving legislative intent present questions of law which are examined independently and without deference to the trial court's ruling. Salve Regina College v. Russell, 499 U.S. 225, 111 S. Ct. 1217, 113 L. Ed.2d 190 (1991); Keizor v. Sand Springs Ry. Co., 1993 OK CIV APP 98, , 861 P.2d 326, 328.
ANALYSIS AND REVIEW
The question here is whether the wording of Section 42(A) excluding the MITF precludes certification of judgments against the MITF to District Court. In an analysis of Section 42(A) and the decisional precedents to its enactment, the Court of Civil Appeals specifically held that judgments for accrued unpaid portions of a permanent total disability award may be certified to District Court. Special Indem. Fund v. Maples, 1998 OK CIV APP 157, , 968 P.2d 839, 844. Here, Petitioners are also seeking to certify accrued unpaid portions of PTD awards and this Court holds that the rationale and ruling in Maples disposes of this appeal.
Maples was overruled in part regarding a second issue in the case by Samman v. Multiple Injury Trust Fund, 2001 OK 71, 33 P.3d 302 n.10. In that footnote the Court stated, in part:
Approximately two (2) years before our pronouncement in Stidham v. Special Indemnity Fund, 2000 OK 33, 10 P.3d 880, the Court of Civil Appeals (COCA) issued an opinion in Special Indemnity Fund v. Maples, 1998 OK CIV APP 157, 968 P.2d 839. The Maples decision appears to contradict the jurisdictional ruling of Stidham, reiterated today. To the extent Special Indemnity Fund v. Maples (as to the jurisdictional issue) is contrary to the holdings of Stidham and our pronouncement here, that opinion is overruled.
Because this Court has here disposed of this appeal on the authority of Maples, it is necessary to review Maples in light of Samman. Maples involved two issues. In addition to the certification question, the appeal concerned the timing of payments by the MITF. Thus, MITF maintained that, by statute, it did not have to begin payment until exhaustion of all weekly benefits for permanent par
Page 1 2 Oklahoma Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|