Court Opinion

ID: 9590625
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:56:47.787683+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:38:13.963618
License: Public Domain

ADAMS, J.,
concurring specially:
¶ 1 I concur in the decision by Judge Hansen, but write to point out my additional particular reasons for doing so. I might be persuaded that Claimant was first required to have his permanent total disability award against the Special Indemnity Fund modified in a change of condition proceeding before receiving any temporary total disability benefits were it not for the existence of the September 1991 order concluding that Claimant had suffered a change of condition for the worse and was entitled to further invasive medical treatment. Employer allowed this order to become final and is bound by that order.
¶2 It is clear from Bill Hodges Truck Company v. Gillum, 1989 OK 86, 774 P.2d 1063, that such medical treatment is permissible and allowed only upon a finding that the “healing period” has reoccurred. In turn, the occurrence of that healing period is equated with temporary total disability in Bodine v. L.A. King Corporation, 1994 OK 22, 869 P.2d 320, in which the Court relied upon Bama Pie, Ltd. v. Raes, 1995 OK 122, 905 P.2d 811.1
¶ 3 By allowing the trial court’s order finding a change of condition for the worse and authorizing additional medical treatment which could have been authorized only if the healing period had reoccurred to become final, Employer lost the right to argue that Claimant could not be considered temporarily totally disabled because of the award against the Special Indemnity Fund. Accordingly, I concur.

. While it may be argued that statements in Bodine and Bama Pie on this issue are mere dicta, they are nevertheless statements by our highest court addressing this issue, and I do not perceive my task to be to attempt to find a way not to apply them merely because I might disagree.