Court Opinion

ID: 9851575
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:15:14.558821+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:54.777634
License: Public Domain

LAVENDER, Justice
(dissenting):
I would affirm the ruling of the Workers’ Compensation Court en banc denying petitioner’s claim as untimely filed. In the case of McCarroll v. Doctors General Hospital, 664 P.2d 382 (Okla.1983) at footnote five of the opinion, this Court stated, in pertinent part:
Although no contention is seriously argued that the new statute of limitation unreasonably shortened the time within which Mrs. McCarroll could bring her action and therefore the previous statute should have been applied, we notice that it is within the power of the Legislature to pass a statute of limitations, or to change the period of limitations previously fixed, and to make such statute or changes applicable to existing (but not yet filed) causes of action, provided a reasonable time is given by the new law for the commencement of suit before the bar takes effect. 51 Am.Jur.2d Limitations of Actions § 57; City of Claremore v. Oklahoma Tax Commission, 197 Okl. 223, 169 P.2d 299, 304 (1946); Baccus v. Banks, 199 Okl. 647, 192 P.2d 683 (1948), app. dismd.; Reeder v. Banks, 333 U.S. 858, 68 S.Ct. 743, 92 L.Ed. 1138.
This statement of the Court and the materials cited therein clearly indicate that the Legislature has the power to amend an existing statute of limitations and to make it effective as to existing rights as long as a reasonable time is given in which affected parties may act to protect those existing rights. In the present case Senate Bill No. 158, lengthening the statute of limitations from one to two years and abolishing the tolling effect of the filing of a Form 2, was adopted with an emergency clause on July 15, 1985. 1985 Okla.Sess.Laws, Ch. 266, § 4. However, it was specifically provided that the provision establishing the new statute of limitations would not take effect until November 1, 1985. 1985 Okla.Sess. Laws, Ch. 266, § 9. All claims filed after that date would be barred. Petitioner in the present case thus had in excess of three months to file his claim.
I would find that the excess of three months was a reasonable time before the bar of the new law became effective.
I am authorized to state that Justice HARGRAVE joins in the views herein expressed.