 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Young v. Rimer12/30/1997
Mandate Issued: April 24, 1998.
This appeal is brought by an injured employee who sought to enforce her unpaid award of workers' compensation benefits by garnishing workers' compensation benefits being paid to her uninsured employer. Garnishing-employee contended that workers' compensation benefits being paid to her uninsured employer had exceeded the $50,000 limit set forth in 31 O.S.1991 Section 1(A)(21), and were no longer exempt "from levy, execution, attachment or other remedy for recovery or collection of a debt" under 85 O.S. Supp. 1997 Section 48. The trial court disagreed and granted "the
[Section 48] claim for exemption from garnishment filed in behalf of the defendant" by the garnishee Hahn Trucking Lines. The question we must answer on appeal is the effect of 31 O.S.1991
Section 1(A)(21) on 85 O.S. Supp. 1997 Section 48.
The first step in this inquiry is to examine the language in each statute. Title 31 O.S.1991 Section 1(A)(21) provides that "the following property shall be reserved to every person residing in the state, exempt from attachment or execution . . . for the payment of debts, . . . uch person's interest in a claim for . . . workers' compensation . . . for a net amount not in excess of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00)." (Emphasis added). Title 85 O.S. Supp. 1997 Section 48 provides that " laims for compensation or benefits due under the Workers' Compensation Act shall not be assigned . . . and shall be exempt from all claims of creditors and from levy, execution or attachment or other remedy for recovery or collection of a debt." (Emphasis added). Section 48 further provides that " ompensation and benefits shall be paid only to employees." (Emphasis added.) Section 48 also addresses the payment of compensation and benefits to persons other than employees in limited, specified cases.
In construing these statutes to promote their respective purposes and to reconcile their operation, we conclude that compensation being paid to employees is protected from all claims of creditors and all means of enforcement of such claims. In contrast, compensation paid to persons other than the employee under Section 48, fall under the exemption protection extended by 31 O.S.1991 Section 1(A)(21), because such persons are granted only "an interest in a claim for . . . workers' compensation."
In reaching this Conclusion, we are mindful that the courts have recognized "public policy" exceptions to the exemption protection of compensation or benefits paid to an employee. The case of Commons v. Bragg, 183 Okla. 122, 80 P.2d 287 (1938) (Syllabus 1), held that "the proceeds of [a workers' compensation] award are not exempt from [a spouse's] claim for alimony and support money for . . . minor child in a divorce action under . . . 85 Okla. St. Ann. Section 48, since [the spouse] is not a creditor nor [such] claim for alimony and support money for the minor child a debt within the purview of said statute." The court observed that "an order for the payment of alimony possesses different characteristics from an ordinary debt since it is designed to secure the performance of a legal duty in which the public has an interest." Id. at 290 (citation omitted).
A workers' compensation award shares the attribute of a domestic relations support award in that it "secure the performance of a legal duty in which the public has an interest." However, the statute that governs its enforcement expressly provides that "a certified copy of the award . . . shall be entered on the judgment docket of the district court, and shall have the same force and be subject to the same law as judgments of the district court." 85 O.S. Supp. 19
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.
|
|