 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Special Indemnity Fund v. Maples11/5/1998
COURT OF APPEALS OF OKLAHOMA
SPECIAL INDEMNITY FUND v. MAPLES
Decided: June 26, 1998
RELEASE FOR PUBLICATION BY ORDER OF THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS IN THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS FOR THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA DIVISION NO. I
PROCEEDING TO REVIEW AN ORDER OF THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION COURT HONORABLE KENTON W. FULTON, JUDGE
SUSTAINED
Petitioner Special Indemnity Fund (Fund) seeks review of the trial court's orders refusing to vacate or modify a previous order and certifying a judgment against Fund under 85 O.S. Supp. 1994 §42 for accrued but unpaid benefits due Respondent Leroy D. Maples (Claimant). In this proceeding, Fund asserts the trial court erred (1) in failing to vacate or correct the facially void order under which Claimant asserted sums due and unpaid, that order directing payment by Fund in violation of 85 O.S. Supp. 1994 §172(E), and (2) in certifying a judgment against Fund in violation of §42(A), that section argued to proscribe certification of judgments against Fund under any circumstance. We find no error as alleged however, and hold the order of the Workers' Compensation Court should be sustained.
In August 1995, Claimant commenced an action against his employer to recover benefits for compensable on-the-job back injury occurring in December 1994. In August 1996, Claimant and his employer settled the claim by joint petition granting Claimant $38,500.00 in benefits for thirty-six percent (36%) permanent partial disability (PPD) to the body as a whole.
In September 1996, Claimant commenced the instant action against Fund, asserting his status as a "previously impaired person" at the time of the latest injury and a material increase in disability as a result of combination of previously adjudicated disabilities and disability attributable to the latest injury. 85 O.S. Supp. 1994 §§171, 172. In January 1997, the trial court found Claimant a previously impaired person suffering from fifty-six and one-quarter percent (56.25%) PPD to the body as a whole at the time of the last injury, and, as a result of combination of the previously adjudicated disabilities with the 36% whole-man disability attributable to the last injury, now permanently and totally disabled (PTD). The trial court consequently held Claimant "due compensation at the rate of $205.00 per week from the date of his order and continuing for five (5) years or until the claimant ... reaches the age of 65 years, which ever shall come later," and "beginning with the date of filing of this order, [Fund] is ordered to pay compensation to claimant at the rate" previously determined.
In June 1997, and apparently having received no payments from Fund, Claimant filed a Form 13 "Request for Prehearing Conference" seeking to compel Fund's payment of benefits in compliance with the trial court's January order. At hearing in September 1997, Claimant asserted entitlement to payments from Fund under the January order from and after the date thereof and Fund's failure to pay, seeking certification of unpaid sums due thereunder as a judgment under 85 O.S. §42(A). Fund objected, asserting its obligation to pay did not accrue until expiration of Claimant's benefits from Claimant's last injury under 85 O.S. §172(E), according to Fund 260-some weeks after entry of the joint petition settling the last injury claim, and thus requested that the immediate-commencement-of-payment provision of the trial court's January order be vacated or modified. Further, said Fund, the express language of §42(A) proscribed certification of judgments against Fund.
On consideration of the parties' briefs and arguments, the trial court rejected Fun
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Oklahoma Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|