Title: REYNOLDS v. IC OF OKLAHOMA, L.L.C.
Citation: 2011 OK 25, 250 P.3d 899
Docket Number: 
State: Oklahoma
Issuer: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Date: April 5, 2011

REYNOLDS v. IC OF OKLAHOMA, L.L.C. Annotate this Case REYNOLDS v. IC OF OKLAHOMA, L.L.C. 2011 OK 25 Case Number: 107610 Decided: 04/05/2011 THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA NOTICE: THIS OPINION HAS NOT BEEN RELEASED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE PERMANENT LAW REPORTS. UNTIL RELEASED, IT IS SUBJECT TO REVISION OR WITHDRAWAL. LISA M. REYNOLDS, Petitioner, v. IC OF OKLAHOMA, L.L.C., INTERNATIONAL TRUCK & ENGINE CORP., OWN RISK #19208, and THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION COURT, Respondents. CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS, DIVISION I ¶0 Lisa Reynolds, the claimant/petitioner, seeks review of a Workers' Compensation Court order finding permanent partial disability to her left eye. She asserts that the court erred as a matter of law in finding an amount based upon "corrected vision" contrary to Rule 23 of the Rules of the Workers' Compensation Court. The Court of Civil Appeals vacated the order of the Workers' Compensation Court and remanded to reconsider the disability determination. CERTIORARI GRANTED; OPINION OF THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS VACATED; ORDER OF THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION COURT SUSTAINED. John N. MacKenzie, Tulsa, Oklahoma, for Petitioner. David J. L. Frette, HASTINGS & ASSOCIATES, Tulsa, Oklahoma, for Respondents. WINCHESTER, J. ¶1 We granted certiorari to determine whether an artificial intraocular lens that replaces the natural lens in an eye is a "correction" that is not to be considered in determining a permanent partial disability pursuant to Rule 23 of the Rules of the Workers' Compensation Court. We vacate the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals and sustain the order of the Workers' Compensation Court. ¶2 On June 7, 2008, the petitioner and claimant, Lisa M. Reynolds, received an injury to her left eye in the course of her employment for IC of Oklahoma, LLC, the respondent. Her injury required medical care and the implantation of an artificial lens. The claimant requested a determination of 100% permanent partial disability for the loss of use of her left eye based on measuring her uncorrected vision and, alternatively, if her permanent partial disability was determined from her corrected vision, she requested a determination consistent with her medical report, which found she had a 46% permanent partial disability after the intraocular lens correction was considered. The respondents' medical report found 20% partial permanent disability to the claimant's left eye. The Workers' Compensation Court awarded 39% permanent partial disability to the claimant's left eye. The claimant appealed that order. The Court of Civil Appeals vacated the order and remanded to the Workers' Compensation Court to reconsider the disability determination after taking further medical evidence to determine whether the claimant's left eye vision had been restored, rather than corrected, through the use of the artificial lens implant. The respondent petitioned for certiorari, which this Court granted. ¶3 The resolution of the issue in this dispute depends upon the construction of the words "uncorrected vision" in the Rules of the Oklahoma Workers' Compensation Court, Rule 23. 85 O.S.Supp.2010, ch. 4, app. That rule provides that in a physician's report, eye impairment "shall be based upon uncorrected vision." ¶4 The respondent argues the claimant was not entitled to a ruling that she had suffered 100% eye impairment in her left eye because the lens had repaired her eye, rather than merely correcting her vision. In support, the respondent cited Hereden v. Multiple Injury Trust Fund, ¶5 The Court of Civil Appeals in Hereden held that the implanted lens was a prosthetic device and its effect on impairment was different than the effect of a corrective device. In addition, where a prosthetic device has replaced a missing biological part of the human body, the inquiry of impairment does not end with the biological loss; it extends to determining the degree of anatomical or functional loss that remains after the prosthetic device is in use. Hereden, "In § 15 of the Act, the Legislature has expressly required that prosthetic devices be provided in cases of loss of one or more eyes (which includes loss of sight of 20/200 and greater). ¶6 We agree with the observations and conclusions of the Hereden court. An artificial intraocular lens has a degree of permanence unlike eyeglasses or contact lenses. We hold the implanted lens is a permanent device for the purpose of restoring functional use of the eye, and not a correction such as eyeglasses and contact lenses provide. CERTIORARI GRANTED; OPINION OF THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS VACATED; ORDER OF THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION COURT SUSTAINED. CONCUR: TAYLOR, C.J., KAUGER, WINCHESTER, EDMONDSON, COMBS and GURICH, JJ. DISSENTS: WATT, J. NOT PARTICIPATING: COLBERT, V.C.J. DISQUALIFIED: REIF, J. WATT, J., Dissenting: I voted to grant certiorari to decide these issues and resolve the conflict with Hereden v. Multiple Injury Trust Fund, FOOT