 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Rivas v. Parkland Manor9/19/2000
ON CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS, DIVISION 4
After receiving medical and temporary disability benefits, Petitioner, Rivas, pursued a workers' compensation claim for permanent partial disability (PPD) benefits for an on the job shoulder injury occurring while employed by Parkland Manor. The trial court assessed Petitioner's disability at 30% PPD. Due to Petitioner's previous PPD adjudications totaling 99.85%, the trial court awarded him $99.12, corresponding to 0.15% PPD. This limitation was implemented by the trial court which applied 85 O.S. Supp. 1995, § 22(7); § 22(7) mandates total PPD awards not exceed 100% permanent partial disability. The three judge panel of the Workers' Compensation Court affirmed the trial court's ruling and Petitioner appealed. The Court of Civil Appeals reversed the three judge panel and this Court granted certiorari to determine if the limitation of Rivas' award due to pre-existing PPD violated the federal equal protection clause or the state constitutional provisions in Art. 2 § 6 and Art. 5 § 54. This opinion finds § 22(7) does not violate the federal equal protection clause or the state constitution. The decision of the three judge panel is affirmed.
CERTIORARI PREVIOUSLY GRANTED; COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OPINION VACATED; ORDER OF THE THREE JUDGE PANEL OF THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION COURT AFFIRMED.
The issue presented is whether it is constitutionally permissible for an injured worker to have his workers' compensation benefits limited, due to pre-existing adjudications of permanent partial disability ("PPD"), in order to prevent receipt of combined awards in excess of 100% permanent partial disability. After a review of the record on appeal, we answer the question in the affirmative.
Claimant, Manuel Rivas, Jr., was injured while working for Parkland Manor in January 1997. He pursued a workers' compensation claim and received temporary total disability benefits and medical treatment, including surgery. After surgery, Rivas sought PPD benefits for his continuing permanent disability. At the time, he had pre-existing PPD adjudications totaling 99.85%.
After a hearing, the trial court adjudicated Rivas's injury as a 30% permanent partial disability to the body as a whole. The trial court then applied 85 O.S. Supp. 1995, § 22(7) and limited Rivas' compensation award to 0.15% permanent partial disability compensation. Title 85 O.S. Supp. 1995, § 22(7) provides in part:
The sum of all permanent partial disability awards, including awards against the Multiple Injury Trust Fund, shall not exceed one hundred percent (100%) permanent partial disability for any individual. An individual may not receive more than five hundred twenty (520) weeks' compensation for permanent partial disability, but may receive other benefits under the Workers' Compensation Act if otherwise eligible as provided in the Workers' Compensation Act.
The statute limits PPD so that the sum of an injured worker's total PPD adjudications cannot exceed 100% permanent partial disability. By applying the statute to Rivas, the trial court reduced Rivas' compensation to $99.12 from $24,900.00, the amount he would have received had he been awarded the entire sum under the 30% adjudication.
After the hearing Rivas appealed the trial court's order to the three judge panel of the Workers' Compensation Court. Rivas argued that 85 O.S. Supp. 1995, § 22(7) as applied by the trial court violated his constitutional rights on federal equal protection grounds. He also argued the application of the statute violated Oklahoma constitutional provisions, Art. 2, § 6 (which mandates that every wrong will have a speedy and
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Oklahoma Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|