 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Jackson v. Cyclo LP Gas8/19/2005
Mandate Issued: 09/16/2005
VACATED AND REMANDED
The dispositive issue in this case is whether Claimant/Petitioner Danny Jackson filed his motion to reopen his workers' compensation claim due to change in condition within the time period prescribed by 85 O.S. 2001 §43(C). We answer that question in the affirmative, vacate the decision of the Workers' Compensation Court, and remand for further action consistent with this Opinion.
Claimant suffered an injury to his right leg as a result of an on-the-job accident while employed by Respondent Cyclo LP Gas, Inc. On March 3, 1995, the trial court awarded Claimant temporary total disability (TTD) benefits, finding Cyclo Gas responsible for reasonable and necessary treatment to his right leg, including diagnostic testing, under the care of Frank Wood, M.D. On November 12, 1997, the trial court awarded Claimant compensation for permanent partial disability (PPD). The order required Cyclo Gas to furnish Claimant "with continuing medical care limited to medications (Daypro) to maintain the Claimant's orthopedic injuries for a period not to exceed one (1) year without further Order of the Court. Said benefit to be provided by DR. GRIFFIN."
The following year, approximately one month before his prescription coverage was set to expire under the November 1997 order, Claimant filed a Form 13 request for a prehearing conference seeking extension of his continuing medical compensation and authorization for related evaluation. This resulted in a May 25, 1999 order directing Cyclo Gas to provide Claimant "with medication (Daypro or other form), including examination needed to provide same, by Dr. James L. Griffin until otherwise ordered by the Court."
Almost five years later, on April 14, 2004, Claimant filed a Form 9 motion to reopen on change of condition. Cyclo Gas moved to dismiss, arguing the applicable limitations period had expired. The trial court denied the motion to reopen, ruling Claimant filed it out of time. The court reasoned that its May 25, 1999 authorization of medical treatment was not the "last order" in the case within the meaning of 85 O.S. 2001 §43(C) because it merely served to "reinforce and continue a benefit previously conferred by the Court" and did not substantially affect the monetary, medical, or rehabilitation benefits conferred by the Workers' Compensation Act. Claimant appeals from the trial court's order denying his motion to reopen.
Because this case turns on whether the trial court correctly applied 85 O.S. 2001 §43(C) in holding the motion to reopen time-barred, we are presented with a question of law subject to de novo review. See Mangrum v. Fensco, Inc., 1999 OK 78, , 989 P.2d 461, 462.
"The law governing the reopening of a compensation claim upon a change of condition is that which was in effect at the time the claimant's condition underwent a change, and not the law at the time of the injury or the law in force at the time of the original award." Arrow Tool & Gauge v. Mead, 2000 OK 86, , 16 P.3d 1120, 1123. Thus, Claimant's April 14, 2004 motion to reopen is subject to the limitations period set forth in 85 O.S. 2001 §43(C), which provides in pertinent part:
The jurisdiction of the Court to reopen any cause upon an application based upon a change in condition shall extend for that period of time measured by the maximum number of weeks that could be awarded for the particular scheduled member where the change of condition occurred . . . and unless filed within said period of time after the date of the last order, shall be forever barred. An order denying an application to reopen a claim shall not extend the period of that
Page 1 2 3 Oklahoma Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|