Court Opinion

ID: 9878703
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-27 17:34:44.496043+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:47:39.761578
License: Public Domain

Gurieh, V.C. J., with whom Kauger, J., joins dissenting: ¶ 1 This Court’s precedent directs that “[wjhere; there are two possible interpretations in the construction of a statute, one of which would render the statute unconstitutional, the Court should adopt the construction which upholds the statute, unless the repugnancy to the constitution is shown beyond a reasonable doubt.” Gilbert Cent. Corp. v. State, 1986 OK 6, ¶7, 716 P.2d 654, 658. Because the Petitioner has not shown that 57 of Title 85A is repugnant to the constitution beyond a reasonable doubt and because 57 can be interpreted so as to avoid constitutional doubt, we are bound to accept the interpretation that upholds the provision. For the reasons set forth below, I respectfully dissent. Relevant Facts ¶¾ On February 12, 201k, Petitioner, Brandon Gibby, injured his right wrist and left knee in the course and scope of his employment with Respondent, Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. Mr. Gibby reported the injury and attempted to work the next day but was unable to do so. Hobby Lobby admitted Mr. Gibby suffered a workplace injury and sent him for examination the day after the injury. He was prescribed medication and was fitted with a splint for his wrist. He remained off work and underwent an MRI on his wrist on February 27, 201k. He received farther medication and treatment for his wrist. Mr. Gibby then underwent an MRI on his knee on March 27, 201k. He returned to work on April 29, 201k, but continued to receive treatment for his injuries and underwent physical therapy for several weeks. Mr. Gibby received temporary total disability benefits from February 21, 201k, through April 29, 201k. ¶ 3 On June 2, 2014, Mr. Gibby was scheduled to see Dr. Dumigan for additional treatment, but did not show up for the appointment. The medical notes reflect that Mr. Gibby did not call and was charged a no-show -fee. Mr. Gibby testified he overslept but that he called and rescheduled. Although he testified he then attended the rescheduled appointment, the record does not include any medical notes reflecting the rescheduled visit. Mr. Gibby saw Dr. Kiehn on June 24, 2014, and Dr. Kiehn’s notes state that Mr. Gibby “appears to be doing fine” and that he “would release him at [maximum medical improvement] at this point.”1 On June 30, 2014, Mr. Gibby filed a CC-Form-A requesting a change of physician. .The parties agreed on Dr. Janssen, and Mr. Gibby saw Dr. Janssen on August 11, 2014. Dr. Janssen recommended therapy, bracing, and' anti-in-flammatories for Mr. Gibb^s knee and scheduled him to return in three weeks for a follow-up. He estimated Mr. Gibby would reach maximum medical improvement in two to three months. ¶4 Mr. Gibby was scheduled to see Dr. Janssen on September 12, 2014, but did not attend the' appointment. The medical chart for the visit indicates Mr. Gibby was a “no-show.”2 Mr. Gibby testified he got lost in downtown Oklahoma City and called about five minutes before he was to be seen’’to reschedule the appointment. Again, he testified he attended the rescheduled appointment but nothing in the record substantiates that testimony. Mr. Gibby was scheduled to see Dr. Janssen on October 20, 2014. He did not attend this appointment. Dr. Janssen’s notes for that visit state: Brandon was scheduled to be seen today. He has had multiple no-shows, a total of four. I last saw him in August. I am assuming his knee must be fine or. he would be showing up for his appointments. Today I am considering Brandon MMI and he is released without restrictions on his left knee.3  On October 27, 2014, Hobby Lobby filed a CC-Form-13 requesting that all benefits be terminated pursuant to 85A O.S. Supp. 2013 57, citing the missed appointments by Mr. Gibby. ¶ 5 On January 12, 2016, the parties appeared for a healing with the assigned ALJ, and the ALJ continued the- hearing and ordered ■ the parties to “get [the] PPD reports.” 4 Mr. Gibby saw Dr, Young on February 27, 2015, for an Independent medical examination, wherein -Dr. Young found 2% permanent partial- impairment to the right wrist and 0% permanent partial- impairment to the left knee.5 Mr. Gibby also saw Dr. McClure for an independent medical examination, and pursuant to that examination, Dr. McClure found Mr. Gibby suffered a 5% permanent partial impairment to the body as a whole for the injury to the left knee and suffered an 8% permanent partial- impairment to the body as a whole due to the injury to the right wrist.6  ¶ 6 The parties submitted their permanent partial disability reports, and a hearing was held on March 30, 2015, wherein Mr. Gibby was the only witness to testify. On April 29, 2015, the ALJ filed an Order Denying Permanent Partial Disability. In that order, the ALJ made no finding with regard to Mr. Gibby’s permanent partial impairment, but denied permanent partial disability benefits pursuant to 85A O.S. Supp. 2013 57. The ALJ found that Mr. Gibby “admitted he missed three medical appointments for treatment,” and that Mr. Gibby offered no evidence that he gave two hours’ notice of the absence with a valid excuse.7 The ALJ also found no extraordinary circumstances existed for Mr. Gibby’s failure to attend the appointments, so 57 prohibited him from receiving permanent partial disability benefits.8 The Commission affirmed the decision of the ALJ, and this Court retained the appeal, Analysis ¶ 7 The statute at issue in this casé, Section 57 of Title 85A, provides: A. If an injured employee misses two or more scheduled appointments for treatment, he or she shall no longer be Eligible to receive benefits under this act, unless his or her absence was: 1. Caused by extraordinary circumstances beyond the employee’s' control as determined by the Commission; or 2. The employee gave the émployer at least two (2) hours prior notice of the absence and had a valid excuse. B. Inability to get transportation to or from the appointment shall not be considered extraordinary circumstances nor ,a valid .excuse for the absence,9  Section 57 does not specify the type of “benefits” to be terminated when an injured employee misses two or more scheduled appointments for treatment. The ALJ determined that 57 allowed denial of permanent partial disability benefits, due to the missed appointments for medical treatment, but I disagree. ¶ 8 Permanent disability benefits are not determined or awarded based on the continued treatment of the injured employee. Rather, permanent disability benefits are awarded once an, injured worker reaches “maximum- medical improvement” and “no further material improvement would reasonably be expected from medical treatment or the passage of time.”10 Upon reaching maximum medical improvement, an injured employee is evaluated by an independent medical examiner, and the examiner sets forth his or her opinion regarding the injured worker’s percentage of permanent disability based on physical loss of use related to the workplace injury. See 85A O.S. Supp. 2013 2(33). ¶ 9 Countless examples abound throughout the AWCA wherein' the Legislature distinguishes between treatment and evaluation. Section 50(G) provides that “[t]he employer shall reimburse the employee for the actual mileage in excess of twenty (20) miles round-trip to and from the employee’s home to the location of a medical service provider for all reasonable and necessary treatment, for an evaluation of an independent medical examiner and for any evaluation made at the request of the employer or insurance carrier,” 85A O.S. Supp. 2013 50(G) (emphasis added). Section 53(B) provides that “[i]n cases where the Commission directs examination or treatment, proceedings shall be suspended....” 85A O.S. Supp. 2013 63(B) (emphasis added). Section 112(F), which sets forth the procedure to select and appoint an independent medical examiner provides: “After a physical examination and review of medical records and other appropriate information, including depositions and surveillance video, the independent medical examiner shall submit a verified written report to the Commission and to the parties. In the event the independent medical examiner determines that more medical treatment is necessary, the, employer shall designate a treating physician to provide the indicated treatment.” 85A O.S. Supp. 2013 112(F) (emphasis added). ■ ¶ 10 Because of the Legislature’s specific use of the phrase “scheduled appointments for treatment’ in 67,1 would interpret 57 so as to allow the termination of those benefits directly related to such treatment.11 Benefits related to treatment of a Workplace injury could include temporary partial disability, temporary total disability, or in some instances, continuing medical maintenance, but would not include permanent partial or permanent total disability benefits.12 Under the facts of the case before us, Mr, Gibby was still in treatment for his workplace injury when he missed the medical appointments on June 2, 2014, September 12, 2014, and October 20, 2014.13 In fact, those appointments were “scheduled . appointments for treatment” as the term is used in 57. Thus, Hobby Lobby’s remedy for Mr. Gibby’s failure to attend the scheduled medical appointments for treatment was to terminate Mr. Gibby’s temporary total disability benefits,14  ¶ 11 Because Mr. Gibby’s temporary total benefits had already ceased on April 29, 2014, Hobby Lobby’s only other remedy was to seek reimbursement for the cost of the missed appointments under 50(H)(12) of Title 85A. That section provides: If an employee fails to appear for a scheduled appointment with a physician, the employer or insurance company shall pay to the physician a reasonable charge, to be determined by the Commission, for the missed appointment. In the absence of a good-faith reason for missing the appointment, the Commission shall order the employee to reimburse the employer or insurance company for the charge.15  Mr. Gibby’s scheduled appointments for treatment would fall under the purview of 50(H)(2) so long as the appointments were with a “physician.”16  ¶ 12 I would not invalidate 57 on constitutional grounds. I would find that the Commission incorrectly applied 57 to prevent Mr. Gibby from pursuing an award of permanent partial disability. I would vacate the order of the Commission and remand the case for further proceedings. On remand, Hobby Lobby can seek reimbursement for the cost of the missed medical appointments. The issue of permanent partial disability should be resubmitted to the ALJ for consideration of all medical evidence with regard to Mr. Gibby’s request for permanent partial disability.  . Record on Appeal at 48.   . Record on Appeal at 62.   .Record on Appeal at 59.   . Transcript of Hearing at 6 (Mar. 30, 2015).   . Mr, Gibby was scheduled to see Dr. Young on February 9, 2015, but did not attend the appointment.   .. Mr. Gibby initially saw Dr, McClure on November 4, 2014. Dr. McClure then submitted a supplemental report on March 4, 2015, at the request of Mr. Gibby’s counsel, wherein Dr. McClure’s permanent partial impairment rating was calculated pursuant to the AMA Guides 5th Edition. Pursuant to the 5 th Edition, Dr. McClure found Mr. Gibby had suffered a 35% permanent partial impairment to tire right wrist and 26% permanent partial impairment to the left knee.   . Record on Appeal at 26.   . Because 57 was incorrectly applied in this case, we need not decide whether extraordinary circumstances is an arbitrary standard subject to invalidation under the due process clause.   . 85A O.S. Supp. 2013 57 (emphasis added).   . 85A O.S. Supp, 2013 2(28). In contrast, temporary disability benefits are provided to an injured worker during the period of healing and while the worker undergoes treatment for the workplace injury. Gray v. Natkin Contracting, 2001 OK 73, ¶¶12-13, 44 P.3d 547, 550-51.   . "The primary goal of statutory construction is to ascertain and follow legislative intent.” Bober v. Okla. State Univ., 2016 OK 78, ¶11, 378 P.3d 562, 565. We “presume];] that the law-making body has expressed its intent in a statute's language and that it intended what it so expressed, If the meaning of a statute is plain and unambiguous, it will not be subjected to rules of judicial construction but will receive the effect its language dictates.” Villines v. Szczepanski, 2005 OK 63, ¶9, 122 P.3d 466, 470.   . In some cases, an injured worker can reach maximum medical improvement but still require medical treatment. In such cases, the "benefit” awarded includes continuing medical maintenance. See 85A O.S. Supp. 2013 2(12) (defining continuing medical maintenance as "medical treatment that is reasonable and necessary to maintain claimant’s condition resulting from the compensable injury or illness after reaching maximum medical improvement”).   . At the time Hobby Lobby filed its motion to terminate benefits, Mr. Gibby had not yet reached maximum medical improvement and had not been evaluated by an independent medical examiner for purposes of permanent partial disability.   . Section 45(A)(2) of Title 85A also discusses termination of temporary total disability benefits upon an injured employee missing "three consecutive medical treatment appointments.” However, I do not read 57 to be inconsistent with 45(A)(2). Under the facts of this case, Hobby Lobby could have proceeded under either provision to terminate Mr. Gibby’s temporary total benefits had Mr. Gibby still been receiving such benefits at the time of the missed appointments for treatment.   . 85A O.S. Supp. 2013 50(H)(12).   . Section 50(H)(12) again demonstrates that the Legislature knew how to distinguish between scheduled appointments with physicians generally and scheduled appointments specifically for medical treatment. If the Legislature had meant to include scheduled appointments with any physician in Section 57 it could have easily done so, but it did not.