Harjo v. Special Indemnity Fund
This text of 1999 OK CIV APP 109 (Harjo v. Special Indemnity Fund) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
¶ 1 Petitioner Cecil Harjo, administrator of the estate of Abbey Harjo (Administrator), appeals from an order of a three-judge panel of the Workers’ Compensation Court which affirmed an order of the trial court. The trial court order found that any accrued potential award of compensation abated on the death of the claimant Abbey Harjo.
¶2 The record in the instant case indicates that Harjo filed a Form 3 August 9, 1994, alleging cumulative trauma to the right hand and left hand and arm with a date of last exposure of August 5, 1994. The Workers’ Compensation Court entered an order June 6,1995 in which it found that Harjo and Employer Yale Cleaners had entered a Form 14 agreement as to injury and compensation February 1,1993, which addressed a May 22, 1991 cumulative trauma injury to the right wrist. The order further found that Harjo suffered a single event injury to her right arm and hand in April 1992, and that Harjo suffered a cumulative trauma injury to the hands in March 1993. The order found that Harjo had suffered a change of condition for the worse and reserved the issues of temporary and permanent disability for later hearing.
¶ 3 A joint petition was filed August 8, 1996, in which Employer and its insurer agreed to pay Harjo $32,375.00 in settlement of her permanent disability claims. Harjo filed her claim against Respondent Special Indemnity Fund (the Fund) August 26, 1996. Harjo alleged in her claim that her most recent injury was 35% disability to the whole body as addressed in the joint settlement petition. Harjo alleged her May 22, 1991 injury as her prior disability. A motion to set the matter for trial on the issue of permanent total disability against the Fund was filed February 2,1998.
¶ 4 Harjo’s counsel filed a motion for substitution of parties October 13,1998, in which he informed the court that Harjo died June 27,1998 of respiratory failure. Harjo’s counsel sought the substitution of Administrator as the petitioner. The trial court entered its order substituting Administrator as the proper party October 30, 1998. The court entered the order subject to the instant appeal December 18, 1998. In the order the court found that the parties stipulated there are no beneficiaries or dependents of Harjo, as defined in 85 O.S.1991 § 48, and that under § 48(l)(e) “any potential award of benefits to which the deceased claimant’s beneficiaries or dependents may have been entitled to under 85 O.S. § 41(C) is abated. This includes any accrued potential award which may not be subject to the provisions of 85 O.S. § 172(D).” The three-judge panel affirmed this order.
[342]*342¶ 5 Administrator argues that the order is too vague because it is unclear when the award abates; that application of 85 O.S. 1991 § 48 to the instant case is contrary to law; and that abatement of the award violates the Oklahoma Constitution. We sustain the panel’s order.
¶ 6 First, we note that Administrator asserts that a settlement with the Fund had been entered and that the award had accrued at the time of Harjo’s death. No settlement agreement between Harjo or Administrator and the Fund appears in the record. This fact is not determinative of the case, however. Claims against the Fund are governed by 85 O.S.1991 §§ 171 and 172. Section 172(D) provides that “awards from (the Fund) shall abate upon the death, from any cause, of the employee.” Title 85 O.S.1991 § 41(C) provides, in pertinent part, that “an award for disability may be made after the death of the injured employee, when death results from causes other than the injury.” Title 85 O.S.1991 § 48 addresses who may receive compensation awards after a claimant’s death.1 In the trial court’s order, the [343]*343parties stipulated that no beneficiary or dependent under § 48 exists in this case.
¶ 7 Whether an award is abated is a legal question. OK Iron & Metal Co. v. Gardner, 1994 OK CIV APP 16, 872 P.2d 405. This court has held that, because under § 172, an award from the Fund accrues at the date of the last payment of compensation for the most recent injury, an “accrued” award may be made against the Fund, after the death of the claimant, for compensation due from the Fund between the time of the last compensation paid under the most recent injury and the time of death. LaChance v. Special Indemnity Fund, 1997 OK CIV APP 16, 936 P.2d 961. In that case, this court held that an award abates and not the action, so that a party may still seek an award after the death of the claimant. This holding is consistent with § 41. However, more importantly, this court in LaChance also held that “an award of material increase compensation from combined disability that has accrued from the last payment of the latest injury per § 172(B) up to the employee’s death is payable as provided in § ⅛8.” (Emphasis added). In LaChance, the claim for revivor of the action was brought by the claimant’s surviving spouse. The court noted that the surviving spouse was entitled to half of the award under § 48, but remanded the case for a determination of the portion of the award to go to the claimant’s surviving children under § 48.
¶ 8 In addition, this court has held that there can be no revivor of a claim under § 41(C) where there is no surviving dependent as defined in § 48. OK Iron & Metal Co., 872 P.2d at 407. In that case, the trial court awarded permanent partial disability after the death of the claimant pursuant to § 41(C). This court vacated the order because there was “no person qualified under 85 O.S. § 48 to receive any disability award.” Accordingly, although an action against the Fund after Harjo’s death could have been brought by a § 48 dependent under La-Chance, because the parties stipulated that no § 48 beneficiary or dependent exists, any claim for compensation from the Fund is moot as there is no party to whom payment could be made. We therefore sustain the panel’s order.2
¶ 9 SUSTAINED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
1999 OK CIV APP 109, 990 P.2d 340, 70 O.B.A.J. 3687, 1999 Okla. Civ. App. LEXIS 110, 1999 WL 1051944, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harjo-v-special-indemnity-fund-oklacivapp-1999.