Chumley v. Climate Master, Inc.

Chumley v. Climate Master, Inc.
1999 OK CIV APP 34
979 P.2d 759
70 OBJ 1461
Case Number: 91836
Decided: 02/08/1999
Mandate Issued: 04/01/1999

RELEASE FOR PUBLICATION BY ORDER OF THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS,
IN THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA;
DIVISION I.

H. DON CHUMLEY, Petitioner,
v.
CLIMATE MASTER, INC., and the WORKERS' COMPENSATION COURT, Respondents.

PROCEEDING TO REVIEW AN ORDER OF THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION COURT;
Honorable D. Craig Johnston, Judge.

VACATED AND REMANDED.

James G. Potts, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, For Petitioner,
Darla Anderson and James C. Ferguson, Walker, Ferguson & Ferguson, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, For Respondents.

OPINION

ADAMS, Judge

¶1 This review of a Form 19 proceeding poses the question of when the statute of limitations began to run on Petitioner's claim for payment of his bill for medical services rendered to Claimant James R. Heitzler. At hearing before the Workers' Compensation Court, both parties argued Fortenbacher v. Guardsmark, Inc.,

¶2 Generally, a statute of limitations begins to run when a cause of action accrues. Oklahoma Brick Corporation v. McCall,

¶3 Although the filing of a claim or notice of injury is necessary to invoke the jurisdiction of the Workers' Compensation Court, these are not the only events necessary to trigger the commencement of the limitations period. "It is only after a claim/notice has been filed, Workers' Compensation Court jurisdiction has been assumed, and an adjudication has been made that the injury was work-related, that a medical care provider may seek in the Workers' Compensation Court reimbursement for services rendered." Romero v. Workers' Compensation Court,

¶4 The filing of a Form 3 or Form 3-B is only the first element which must be present. Prior to the determination by the Workers' Compensation Court that Mr. Heitzler's claim was one compensable under the Workers' Compensation Act, Dr. Chumley could not have pursued his payment request to a conclusion because the treatment would not have been rendered to a "successful claimant." The limitations period did not begin to run until all elements were present for Dr. Chumley to pursue his request for payment to a successful conclusion. Fortenbacher is consistent with this analysis. Addressing the issue of when the limitation period began to run, a panel consisting of the same judges as this panel concluded:

Clearly, once the trial court determined that [the claimant] had suffered a work-related injury, reasonable and necessary medical expenses could be submitted for approval by the Workers' Compensation Court. At that point, all the elements for maintaining a cause of action to a successful conclusion were present, and the cause of action accrued.

Fortenbacher,

¶5 Dr. Chumley filed his Form 19 within three years of the date the Workers' Compensation Court determined the injuries for which Dr. Chumley treated Claimant were compensable. The trial court erred in concluding that Dr. Chumley's Form 19 claim was barred by the statute of limitations. The order denying his claim is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

VACATED AND REMANDED.

HANSEN, P.J. and JONES, C.J., concur.

FOOTNOTES

1Now Rule 24(B).

2This case provides an excellent example of the importance of considering the text of the opinion rather than merely the headnote provided by the editors of West Publishing Co. The fourth headnote for West's publication of Fortenbacher, inaccurately states that a cause of action like Dr. Chumley's "accrued, for limitations purposes, when services were rendered."