Pepsico, Inc. v. Lancaster

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Pepsico, Inc. v. Lancaster

1990 OK 120, 801 P.2d 721, 61 O.B.A.J. 3016, 1990 Okla. LEXIS 131, 1990 WL 179859

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedNovember 13, 1990

DocketNo. 75082

StatusPublished

This text of 1990 OK 120 (Pepsico, Inc. v. Lancaster) 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. Lancaster, 1990 OK 120, 801 P.2d 721, 61 O.B.A.J. 3016, 1990 Okla. LEXIS 131, 1990 WL 179859 (Okla. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

The facts in this workers’ compensation case are not disputed. Claimant alleged a lower back injury occurred on April 24, 1984, while he and another employee were lifting a radiator. He filed his claim for benefits on April 8, 1986. The trial tribunal and the appellate panel rejected Pepsi-Co’s statute of limitations defense. Pepsi-Co 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.

PepsiCo argued that the claim was barred by the one-year statute of limitations which was then in effect for single event injuries. The record, however, contains a form 2 notice of injury that Lee Way filed with the Workers' Compensation Court on April 30, 1984. This filing tolled the statute of limitations prior to its 1985 amendment. See Knott v. Halliburton Services, 752 P.2d 812 (Okla.1988).

Before the statute was amended in 1985, a form 2 operated to invoke the jurisdiction of the Workers’ Compensation Court. See Mertz, Inc. v. Gulley, 663 P.2d 753 (Okla.Ct.App.1983). The statute would then bar the action

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 under the Workers’ Compensation Act and shall be dismissed by the Court for want of prosecution. ...

Okla.Stat. tit. 85, § 43 (1981). Claimant’s form 3, claim for compensation, was filed within the five-year period.

The claim for compensation for this injury was timely filed. The orders of the trial tribunal and the appellate panel of the Workers' Compensation Court are therefore sustained.

[722]*722HARGRAVE, C.J., OPALA, V.C.J., and HODGES, LAVENDER, SIMMS, DOOLIN, ALMA WILSON and SUMMERS, JJ., concur. KAUGER, J., recused.

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

ORDER

The facts in this workers’ compensation case are not disputed. Claimant alleged a lower back injury occurred on April 24, 1984, while he and another employee were lifting a radiator. He filed his claim for benefits on April 8, 1986. The trial tribunal and the appellate panel rejected Pepsi-Co’s statute of limitations defense. Pepsi-Co 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.

PepsiCo argued that the claim was barred by the one-year statute of limitations which was then in effect for single event injuries. The record, however, contains a form 2 notice of injury that Lee Way filed with the Workers' Compensation Court on April 30, 1984. This filing tolled the statute of limitations prior to its 1985 amendment. See Knott v. Halliburton Services, 752 P.2d 812 (Okla.1988).

Before the statute was amended in 1985, a form 2 operated to invoke the jurisdiction of the Workers’ Compensation Court. See Mertz, Inc. v. Gulley, 663 P.2d 753 (Okla.Ct.App.1983). The statute would then bar the action

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 under the Workers’ Compensation Act and shall be dismissed by the Court for want of prosecution. ...

Okla.Stat. tit. 85, § 43 (1981). Claimant’s form 3, claim for compensation, was filed within the five-year period.

The claim for compensation for this injury was timely filed. The orders of the trial tribunal and the appellate panel of the Workers' Compensation Court are therefore sustained.

[722]*722HARGRAVE, C.J., OPALA, V.C.J., and HODGES, LAVENDER, SIMMS, DOOLIN, ALMA WILSON and SUMMERS, JJ., concur. KAUGER, J., recused.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1990 OK 120, 801 P.2d 721, 61 O.B.A.J. 3016, 1990 Okla. LEXIS 131, 1990 WL 179859, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pepsico-inc-v-lancaster-okla-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack