Multiple Injury Trust Fund v. Wade

2008 OK 15 (Okla. 2008) · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · February 26, 2008 · No. No. 103,067

Summary

The Oklahoma Supreme Court addresses whether Frank Wade timely requested a hearing on his claim for benefits from the Multiple Injury Trust Fund. The court holds that 85 O.S. Supp. 1986, § 43(B) requires a good-faith hearing request within five years of the later of the filing of the primary employer claim or the employer's last compensation payment. The court vacates the Court of Civil Appeals' opinion, reverses the Workers' Compensation Court's award, and remands for a factual determination of the employer's last payment date.

Court
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Writing for the Court
Taylor, J.; Winchester, C.J.; Edmondson, V.C.J.; Hargrave, J.; Opala, J.; Kauger, J.; Watt, J.; Colbert, J.
Jurisdiction
Oklahoma
Decision date
February 26, 2008
Docket number
No. 103,067
Procedural posture
The Multiple Injury Trust Fund petitioned for review of a Workers' Compensation Court award and sought certiorari after the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the award and held the claim timely prosecuted.
Standard of review
Statutory construction is reviewed de novo. Legal rulings of the Workers' Compensation Court receive plenary, independent, and nondeferential review.
Precedential value
published precedential opinion
Parties
Multiple Injury Trust Fund v. Frank Wade, Workers' Compensation Court
Disposition
reversed_and_remanded

Topics

workers compensationstatutory interpretationappellate procedurestandard of review

Practice areas

workers compensationemployment law

Questions Presented

  1. What event triggers the five-year period under 85 O.S. Supp. 1986, section 43(B) for requesting a hearing on a claim against the Multiple Injury Trust Fund?
  2. Whether Wade's claim against the Fund was timely prosecuted under section 43(B).
  3. Whether the Workers' Compensation Court was required to determine the date of the employer's last payment before dismissing or sustaining the Fund claim.

Holdings

  1. For a derivative claim against the Multiple Injury Trust Fund, the five-year period for requesting a hearing begins on the filing of the primary claim against the employer or on the date of the employer's last payment in the primary claim, whichever is later. Filing a Form 3-f claim against the Fund does not begin the period.
  2. The record did not establish the date of the employer's last payment, so the claim could not be conclusively determined timely or untimely on the existing record.
  3. The primary claim against the employer was timely filed and identified Wade as physically impaired; that timely filing was deemed a timely filing against the Fund under section 43(A).

Key quotations

In light of the purpose of the special indemnity statutes and the derivative nature of a claim against the Fund, we construe the language in § 43(B) "within five (5) years from the date of filing thereof" to mean within five years from the filing of the primary claim against the employer. (180 P.3d at 1212)
We construe this language to mean a request for hearing a claim against the Fund will be timely if it is filed within five years after the last payment of compensation by the employer in the primary claim. (180 P.3d at 1212)
The events that mark the beginning of § 43(B)'s time period are the filing of the primary claim against the employer or the employer's last payment in the primary claim, whichever is later. (180 P.3d at 1213)

Factual background

Wade sustained prior back and right-hand injuries in 1988 and a subsequent neck injury in 1990 while employed by General Motors. His primary workers' compensation claim identified him as a physically impaired person, and the Workers' Compensation Court awarded compensation for the neck injury in an order filed July 29, 1992. Wade did not seek a hearing on liability of the Multiple Injury Trust Fund until 2005, after the employer had apparently completed payment of the primary award.

Procedural history

The Workers' Compensation Court initially dismissed Wade's claim against the Fund for want of prosecution, but a three-judge panel vacated that dismissal and remanded the matter. The trial judge later awarded Wade compensation from the Fund. The Court of Civil Appeals concluded that the claim was not time-barred and had been timely prosecuted. The Oklahoma Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated the Court of Civil Appeals opinion, reversed the Workers' Compensation Court award, and remanded for a factual finding concerning the employer's last compensation payment.

Remand instructions

The Workers' Compensation Court must determine the date of the employer's last payment in the primary claim. If Wade did not make a good-faith request for a hearing within five years after that date, the court must dismiss the Fund claim for want of prosecution under section 43(B).

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…