Summary: In November 2005 Shepard was working for the Oklahoma Department of Corrections when she was injured. In the subsequent worker's compensation case it was found that she sustained injuries to her neck, lumbar back, left shoulder, right shoulder and left arm. The Worker's Compensation Court ordered that Shepard be provided "reasonable and necessary continuing medical maintenance limited to prescription medications and four (4) visits per year to monitor the same with Dr. M." and that this provision was subject to review upon application of either party for good cause shown (the "Order"). Thereafter Shepard continued to receive prescription medication for pain management pursuant to the Order. Shepard continued to receive pain medications and was at all times compliant with her prescriptions. Shepard submitted to random screenings to ensure that she used the pain medications as prescribed, all of which she passed. Shepard moved to reopen her claim in 2010 due to worsening conditions and in 2011 she was granted further compensation as a result. In 2012 the Oklahoma Department of Corrections and its insurance provider (the "Respondents") sought a hearing to "discuss prescriptions". Respondents sought an order that would have the effect of terminating Shepard's medical prescriptions. The gist of Respondent's argument was that under the new Worker's Compensation statute continuing prescription medication for pain management is not authorized, and therefore Shepard's continuing medication for pain management should no longer be authorized. The Worker's Compensation Court of Existing Claims, which is the court specifically formed for the purpose of handling existing claims under the previous Worker's Compensation Court, agreed. Shepard appealed. The Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled that the change in the worker's compensation law was an unconstitutional attempt to retroactively change a Shepard's substantive rights and remanded the case.
Legal Issues: An issue involving the existence of a legislative intent to make a statute retroactive is a question of law that the Oklahoma Supreme Court reviews on a de novo basis and independent of the trial court or tribunal's ruling.
The specific question before the Court involved the change in the Worker's Compensation statute located at 85 O.S. 2005 §14(A)(1), the operative law on the date of Shepard's initial injury, which read:
A. 1. The employer shall promptly provide for an injured employee such medical, surgical or other attendance or treatment, nurse and hospital service, medicine, crutches, and apparatus as may be necessary after the injury. The treating physician shall supply the injured employee and the employer with a full examining report of injuries found at the time of examination and proposed treatment, this report to be supplied within seven (7) days after the examination; also, at the conclusion of the treatment the treating physician shall supply a full report of the treatment to the employer of the injured employee.
and the operative law on the date of the most recent review located at 85 O.S. 2011 §326(G) which reads:
G. Effective March 1, 2012, the scope and duration of medical treatment shall be provided in accordance with the current edition of the "Official Disability Guidelines", as published by the Work Loss Data Institute. For medical treatment not addressed by the Official Disability Guidelines or addressed but not recommended in the ODG section in regard to injuries to the cervical, thoracic, or lumbar spine, the Physician Advisory Committee shall adopt the Oklahoma Treatment Guidelines as provided in Section 73 of this act. Medical treatment provided by or at the direction of the treating physician in accordance with the current edition of the Official Disability Guidelines or Oklahoma Treatment Guidelines is presumed to be reasonable and necessary medical care. The employer or insurance carrier shall not be responsible for charges for medical treatment not provided in accordance with the current edition of the Official Disability Guidelines or Oklahoma Treatment Guidelines unless the medical treatment was provided in a medical emergency, the medical treatment was preauthorized by the employer or insurance carrier, or the medical treatment is approved by the Court upon a finding based on clear and convincing evidence provided by a qualified independent medical examiner that medical treatment provided according to either the ODG or OTG is not in the best interest of the employee.
First the Court examined whether the legislature intended for a retroactive application of §326(G) to someone who had been awarded continuing medical care prior to its effective date. The Court generally presumes that all legislation is intended to operate from its effective date forward unless there is a plain legislative intent to the contrary or the nature of the statute itself invokes retroactive application. The Court further noted that in past changes to worker's compensation the legislature had used terms such as 'regardless of the date of the injury' in the legislation to indicate retroactive application, and that no such language is found here. The Court also applied the in pari materia doctrine to read the worker's compensation legislation as a whole to examine the legislative intent in passing this provision. In so doing, the Court concluded that the legislature did intend for §326(G) to apply to continuing medical care awarded prior to its effective date.
Second, the Court examined whether the legislature was constitutionally empowered to make this legislation take effect in a retroactive manner. The Oklahoma State Constitution prohibits the legislature from affecting the accrued rights of a party by repeal or amendment of a statute. Okla. Const. Art. 5 §54. In order to be protected, the accrued right must be substantive, and not merely procedural. The Court examined the proposed difference in medical care to be provided to Shepard should §326(G) be applied retroactively and found that while Shepard presently received ongoing pain management and prescription medications under the prior law, under the new law Shepard would not receive any medical treatment in the form of anti-inflammatiries, muscle relaxers, painkillers, or sleep assistance medications and would receive at most "intermittent use of mediation, but not on a routine prescription basis." The Court ruled that this amounted to a substantive right, and that the legislature was constitutionally prohibited from retroactively affecting it.
Because the Respondents did not have the opportunity to put on evidence before the Worker's Compensation court based on the prior law, the Court remanded the matter to the Worker's Compensation court for further action.
Discussion: Prior to February 1, 2014 Oklahoma's worker's compensation was handled through a special court set up for that purpose. A political debate arose regarding whether this system was needlessly complicated and excessively expensive resulting in economic harm. The decision was made to scrap the old worker's compensation court and instituted the Worker's Compensation Commission. Under the new legislation worker's compensation claims are much less adversarial and streamlined with the goals of increasing speed of claim processing and reducing insurance and other costs. The policy debate continues regarding whether this will have the effect of removing delays and excesses or whether this will have the effect of steamrolling injured workers and undervaluing their claims. Meanwhile, claims initiated prior to February 1, 2014 are handled by the Worker's Compensation Court of Existing Claims.
No comments:
Post a Comment