WILLIAMS v. NOVA STORE SYSTEMS, L.L.C.

WILLIAMS v. NOVA STORE SYSTEMS, L.L.C.
2005 OK CIV APP 17
109 P.3d 356
Case Number: 100582
Decided: 12/09/2004
Mandate Issued: 02/25/2005
DIVISION I
THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, DIVISION I

IRA WILLIAMS, Petitioner,
v.
NOVA STORE SYSTEMS, L.L.C. and COMPSOURCE OKLAHOMA and THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION COURT, Respondents.

PROCEEDING TO REVIEW AN ORDER OF A THREE-JUDGE PANEL
OF THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION COURT

SUSTAINED

Joe Farnan, Purcell, Oklahoma, for Petitioner,
Michael G. Coker, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Respondents.

Adams, Judge:

¶1 In 1991, Ira Williams, Claimant, suffered a job-related injury and was adjudicated with 6% permanent partial disability (PPD) to the left hand. In 1994, Claimant sustained an on-the-job injury to his neck and back and was adjudicated at 34% PPD to the body. Both injuries were sustained by Claimant while working for employers other than Respondent. On September 11, 2000, while working for Respondent, Nova Store Systems, L.L.C. (Employer), Claimant injured his neck and back. For those injuries, Claimant was adjudicated at 32% PPD to the body. Based upon the combination of his last injuries with his pre-existing PPD, Claimant initiated the instant proceedings to secure permanent total disability (PTD) or, in the alternative, a material increase in PPD.

¶2 The Workers' Compensation Court denied Claimant's claim for PTD on the merits. The court also denied his claim for additional PPD, holding the law in effect on the date of Claimant's injury,

¶3 Employer concedes the medical evidence is sufficient to support an award of additional PPD benefits if such were sanctioned under §172. Thus, the issue in this proceeding is whether §172 authorizes compensation to a claimant for anything less than PTD. Because this issue presents a question of law, a de novo review standard applies. Tibbetts v. Sight 'n Sound Appliance Centers, Inc.,

¶4 Sections 171-176 of Title 85, entitled "Subsequent Injury to Physically Impaired Persons," were enacted in 1943. Section 171 established who was a physically impaired person under the Act. Section 172 provided for compensation for additional disability, limited the liability of the employer and provided for payment of additional compensation from the Special Indemnity Fund, later renamed the Multiple Injury Trust Fund (Fund). The remaining sections established and provided for the administration of the Fund. The Fund was established "to relieve employer hesitation to hire workers who suffered previous impairment by assuring employers that they would not be responsible for the combination of old and new disabilities." Autry v. Multiple Injury Trust Fund,

¶5 Effective November 1, 1999, the Legislature began the "dissolution of the Fund" with an amendment to §172. Autry,

Under the amendment, "[f]or actions filed after October 31, 1999," a combination of disabilities resulting in permanent partial disability would result in employer responsibility only for the disability caused by the subsequent injury. Nor would the employee receive any additional compensation for the combined disability from the Fund. Thus, the disabled worker now bore the responsibility for any material increase in permanent partial disability resulting from the combination of disabilities.

Autry,

¶6 "[T]he dissolution [of the Fund] was completed" when the Legislature enacted the current version of §172 in 2000. Autry,

¶7 The current version of §172(B)(2), which took effect May 26, 2000, provides:

For actions in which the subsequent injury occurred on or after June 1, 2000, if such combined disabilities constitute permanent total disability, as defined in Section 3 of this title, then the claimant shall receive full compensation as now provided by law for the disability resulting directly and specifically from the subsequent injury. In addition, the claimant shall receive full compensation for the combined disability, as above defined, all of which shall be computed upon the schedule and provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act. The employer shall be liable for the degree of percent of disability which would have resulted from the subsequent injury if there had been no preexisting impairment and for any material increase resulting from the combination of such injuries. Payment for the degree of disability resulting from the material increase in disability resulting from the combination of injuries may be paid in periodic installments or may be commuted to a lump-sum payment upon agreement of the claimant and the employer or insurance carrier for the employer. The compensation rate for permanent total awards resulting from a combination of injuries shall be the compensation rate for permanent partial disability paid by the employer in the last combinable compensable injury. Permanent total awards resulting from a material increase in disability resulting from a combination of injuries shall be payable for a period of fifteen (15) years or until the claimant reaches sixty-five (65) years of age, whichever period is the longer. Such awards shall be paid from the date the court order finding the claimant to be permanently and totally disabled is filed.

¶8 "The primary goal of statutory construction is to ascertain and follow the intention of the Legislature." City of Tulsa v. State ex rel. Public Employees Relations Board,

¶9 As previously set forth, benefits for PPD resulting from a combination of disabilities were extinguished by the 1999 amendment of §172. Autry,

¶10 Legislative intent is generally "ascertained from the whole legislative act in light of its general purpose and object." City of Tulsa,

¶11 On the basis of the foregoing and after de novo review, we sustain the order of the Panel.

SUSTAINED

JOPLIN, J. (sitting by designation), and BUETTNER, V.C.J./P.J., concur.

FOOTNOTES

1In reaching this conclusion, we accord no weight to Employer's citation of "House Resolution 1046 dated 13th day of April, 2004" as support for the proposition that the Legislature intended the amended §172 to extinguish claims for anything less than PTD. "[C]onstruction of existing laws is a judicial and not a legislative function . . . . The legislature has no power to direct the judiciary in the interpretation of existing statutes." Stephens Produce Company v. Stephens, 1958 OK 277, ¶13, 332 P.2d 674, 677.