Opinion ID: 2516413
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: the employer's theory of its liability

Text: ¶ 5 The employer concedes that the trial judge correctly applied the 1991 version of the authorized tariff to the expenses incurred between 29 December 1995 and 31 December 1995, but argues that there was error in applying the same tariff to the expenses incurred after 1 January 1996. This is so, it urges, because the then-governing statute (85 O.S.Supp.1995 § 14(E)) [13] mandated by clear and precise language that the tariff next to be prescribed, which was to replace that earlier in force, take effect 1 January 1996 and apply to all after -incurred expenses. ¶ 6 COCA rejected this argument, focusing instead solely on the date of Watkins' change of condition for the worse as a basis for sustaining the trial tribunal's order. The appellate court reasoned the law in effect at the time the changed condition made itself manifest must govern the reopening claim and hence the entirety of all treatment covered by this Form 19. For this proposition the opinion of the intermediate appellate court relies on Wolfenbarger v. Safeway Stores, Inc. [14] That COCA-invoked opinion is distinguishable. It is inapposite to the situation here. Wolfenbarger deals with the timeliness of a filed motion to reopen a claim and addresses itself to the statute of limitations that is to be applied. [15] A different issue is tendered by this case.