PepsiCo, Inc. v. Choate

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

PepsiCo, Inc. v. Choate

1990 OK 124, 802 P.2d 29, 61 O.B.A.J. 3129, 1990 Okla. LEXIS 136, 1990 WL 181820

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedNovember 27, 1990

DocketNo. 75165

StatusPublished

This text of 1990 OK 124 (PepsiCo, Inc. v. Choate) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

PepsiCo, Inc. v. Choate, 1990 OK 124, 802 P.2d 29, 61 O.B.A.J. 3129, 1990 Okla. LEXIS 136, 1990 WL 181820 (Okla. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

HARGRAVE, Chief Justice.

The facts in this workers’ compensation case are not disputed. Claimant alleged a lower back injury occurred on October 5, 1983, after the truck he was driving bottomed out on a highway under construction. He last received authorized medical treatment and compensation on October 26, 1983. His claim for benefits was filed on March 26, 1986. The trial tribunal and the appellate panel rejected PepsiCo’s statute of limitations defense. PepsiCo was held responsible as the guarantor of the workers’ compensation liabilities of its wholly-owned subsidiary, Lee Way Motor Freight, claimant’s now defunct employer.

[30]*30PepsiCo argued that the claim was barred by the one-year statute of limitations which was then in effect for single event injuries. Claimant offered nothing that would toll the statute long enough to justify the March 26, 1986 filing. It was his burden to do so. Armco v. Holcomb, 694 P.2d 937, 939 (Okla.1985).

The voluntary furnishing of medical treatment by Lee Way tolled the running of the statute only during the time treatment was furnished. PepsiCo, Inc. v. Allen, 798 P.2d 608 (Okla.1990). Therefore, when treatment ended on October 26, 1983, claimant had one year to file his claim.

Additionally, the record contains no form 2, which would have tolled the statute prior to the 1985 amendment. See Knott v. Halliburton Services, 752 P.2d 812 (Okla.1988). Nor are we persuaded by claimant’s argument that PepsiCo could not assert the limitations defense which was available to Lee Way. See PepsiCo, Inc. v. Alexander, 798 P.2d 609 (Okla.1990).

The claim for compensation for this injury was not timely filed. The orders of the trial tribunal and the appellate panel of the Workers’ Compensation Court are therefore vacated and the cause is remanded with directions to deny the claim.

OPALA, V.C.J., and HODGES, LAVENDER, SIMMS, DOOLIN and SUMMERS, JJ., concur. ALMA WILSON, J„ dissents. KAUGER, J., recused.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

HARGRAVE, Chief Justice.

The facts in this workers’ compensation case are not disputed. Claimant alleged a lower back injury occurred on October 5, 1983, after the truck he was driving bottomed out on a highway under construction. He last received authorized medical treatment and compensation on October 26, 1983. His claim for benefits was filed on March 26, 1986. The trial tribunal and the appellate panel rejected PepsiCo’s statute of limitations defense. PepsiCo was held responsible as the guarantor of the workers’ compensation liabilities of its wholly-owned subsidiary, Lee Way Motor Freight, claimant’s now defunct employer.

[30]*30PepsiCo argued that the claim was barred by the one-year statute of limitations which was then in effect for single event injuries. Claimant offered nothing that would toll the statute long enough to justify the March 26, 1986 filing. It was his burden to do so. Armco v. Holcomb, 694 P.2d 937, 939 (Okla.1985).

The voluntary furnishing of medical treatment by Lee Way tolled the running of the statute only during the time treatment was furnished. PepsiCo, Inc. v. Allen, 798 P.2d 608 (Okla.1990). Therefore, when treatment ended on October 26, 1983, claimant had one year to file his claim.

Additionally, the record contains no form 2, which would have tolled the statute prior to the 1985 amendment. See Knott v. Halliburton Services, 752 P.2d 812 (Okla.1988). Nor are we persuaded by claimant’s argument that PepsiCo could not assert the limitations defense which was available to Lee Way. See PepsiCo, Inc. v. Alexander, 798 P.2d 609 (Okla.1990).

The claim for compensation for this injury was not timely filed. The orders of the trial tribunal and the appellate panel of the Workers’ Compensation Court are therefore vacated and the cause is remanded with directions to deny the claim.

OPALA, V.C.J., and HODGES, LAVENDER, SIMMS, DOOLIN and SUMMERS, JJ., concur. ALMA WILSON, J„ dissents. KAUGER, J., recused.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1990 OK 124, 802 P.2d 29, 61 O.B.A.J. 3129, 1990 Okla. LEXIS 136, 1990 WL 181820, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pepsico-inc-v-choate-okla-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack