Summary: Cellino was injured in 1997 and re-injured in 2000. In both instances he sought and was awarded workers compensation. In 2003, after both awards were finalized, Cellino moved for payment of principal and post-award interest on the judgments. Also in 2003 Cellino sought certification for a class action award on behalf of all judgment recipients who had not been paid interest on benefits paid from the Multiple Injury Trust Fund after May 9, 1996. From 2003 through 2009 no further documents were filed with the trial court. On July 29, 2009 Cellino filed a motion to compel discovery response. The Multiple Injury Trust Fund answered the discovery requests on August 10, 2009 then filed for a motion of summary judgment on August 14, 2009. The motion for summary judgment argued that pursuant to the then in force 85 O.S. §43(B) which provides in relevant part: "...unless the claimant shall in good faith request a hearing and final determination thereon within five (5) years from the date of filing thereof or within five (5) years from the date of last payment of compensation or wages in lieu thereof, same shall be barred as the basis of any claim for compensation... ."
Legal Issue: The Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled narrowly on the issue of whether Cellino's motion to certify a class action was barred under 85 O.S. §45(B). Cellino argued that pending litigation in the Dean matter effectively suspended this matter until April 8, 2009 and that the failure of the Respondent to answer discovery for six years should toll the time limit on the claim. The Court ruled that Cellino's complete lack of prosecution of this matter for a period of six years invoked the terms of the statute. Despite the problems alleged by Cellino, the absolute failure to make any good faith attempt to move the case forward for the six year period in question resulted in the claim being barred.
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.
This case speaks only to the worker's compensation laws that existed prior to February 1, 2014. As such, there is limited applicability of this case to future issues. However, it is interesting to note that in a very brief concurring opinion Justice Taylor, with Justice Combs joining, noted that he would hold that class action lawsuits were not available in worker's compensation.
No comments:
Post a Comment