Court Opinion

ID: 9613999
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:21:37.000342+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:03:33.459115
License: Public Domain

PER CURIAM:
A trial judge of the Workers’ Compensation Court, after a hearing at which petitioner, George E. Anglen (Anglen), sought temporary total disability, found Anglen sustained an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of his employment, but that he had failed to give notice of his injury to respondent, E.L. Powell & Sons (Powell), within sixty days and that “claimant has failed to show this Court good cause to excuse his failure to comply” with the notice requirements of 85 O.S.Supp. 1986, § 24.2.
The Court of Appeals reversed, in part concluding the trial judge erred in his determination Anglen failed to show good cause. We previously granted certiorari. Although we do not necessarily agree with all the rationale posited by the Court of Appeals, we hold petitioner made a sufficient and adequate showing of good cause to excuse literal compliance with § 24.2. The facts as presented at trial follow.
On December 23, 1987, Anglen, a former truck driver for Powell, filed a Form No. 3 in the Workers’ Compensation Court alleging he suffered a back injury in August of 1987 when he was attempting to put a tarp on the truck he was driving. At first, he thought it was just a pulled muscle, but it later caused so much pain he had to quit driving. Anglen testified the injury occurred in Dallas and he mentioned it to both Mr. Buckner, the dispatcher for Powell, and Mr. Biffel, the Safety Director for Powell when he returned to Powell’s headquarters in Tulsa. Both men deny Anglen stated anything to them about an injury, and Mr. Buckner testified he had not worked for Powell since July 31, 1987, suggesting he would not have been at Powell’s place of business during the involved time period. Trucker’s logs indicate Anglen took a load to Dallas on August 19, 1987.
*1366Anglen first argues the issue of notice of injury was improperly before the trial court because Powell failed to raise it in its answer. However, the issue was raised in Powell’s Pre-Trial Stipulation, and prior to presentation of evidence, counsel for Anglen agreed it was an issue for the trial court to determine. By failing to object to the issue of notice when Powell raised it and by presenting evidence and argument upon it, Anglen waived this assertion. See Matter of N.L., 754 P.2d 863, 866 (Okla.1988); Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. v. Cable, 585 P.2d 1113, 1116 (Okla.1978).
Title 85 O.S.Supp.1986, § 24.2 provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
“A. Unless an employee gives oral or written notice to the employer within sixty (60) days of the date an injury occurs or the employee receives medical attention from a licensed physician during the sixty-day period from the date an injury occurred, the claim shall be forever barred, unless, in the discretion of the trial judge, good cause is shown by the employee to the Court to excuse such failure of notice or treatment.”
Prior to this enactment, the burden was generally on a claimant to show either he gave notice or his employer was not prejudiced by the failure of notice. 85 O.S.1981, § 24. The burden then shifted to the employer to prove that it was prejudiced by the claimant’s failure to give notice. Capitol Steel & Iron Co. v. Austin, 519 P.2d 1364, 1369 (Okla.1974). Literal compliance with § 24 could, however, be excused for sufficient cause. B.K. Daniel Motor Company v. Washington, 530 P.2d 1016, 1019 (Okla.1974). Although the 1986 repeal of § 24 and replacement thereof with § 24.2 appears to have removed the element of prejudice from the equation, § 24.2 still allows a claim to go forward over a lack of notice argument if a claimant can show he actually gave notice within the requisite period or failure to do so is shown to be excused for good cause. Anglen asserts here he did give notice within the requisite time period and, alternatively, if he did not his failure to do so was excused for good cause.
Anglen initially asserts he gave notice to representatives of Powell. The question of whether notice of injury was given is one of fact, and a decision by the trier of fact that notice was not given will not be disturbed on review where reasonably supported by competent evidence. See Oklahoma City v. Alvarado, 523 P.2d 1073, 1075 (Okla.1974).
The trial court found the accidental injury occurred on August 19, 1987. We must accept this finding of fact because it is reasonably supported by competent evidence. Alvarado, supra. All of Anglen’s evidence to the effect he did give notice consisted of his own testimony that he orally advised representatives of Powell he had hurt his back upon his return to Tulsa from the Dallas run. This evidence was all disputed and contradicted by current and former employees of Powell. In that the evidence was disputed and contradicted the trial court’s finding that Anglen did not give notice is reasonably supported by competent evidence. Alvarado, supra. Therefore, this proposition is without merit.
As noted, however, Anglen also contends, albeit alternatively, that pursuant to § 24.2, he showed good cause as to why he failed to give notice. His support for this assertion comes from his own testimony he thought he had simply pulled a muscle in his back and later he thought the pain he was experiencing was due to a kidney infection. He further contends he filed his claim shortly after learning from his doctor he had a serious back injury related to the August 1987 incident at work, rather than kidney problems. This testimony was undisputed and under our previous ease law similar undisputed evidence has been held to excuse literal compliance with former § 24 and we do not believe § 24.2 changed the law in such regard.
Part of Powell’s contention that no good cause was shown here is that in McDonald *1367v. Time-DC, Inc., 773 P.2d 1252 (Okla.1989) this Court rejected the argument the statute of limitations found at 85 O.S.1971, § 43, was subject to a “discovery rule” when the situation involves a single-event injury. A similar argument based on a statute of limitation analogy was made when former § 24 was in effect and rejected in B.K. Daniel Motor Company v. Washington, supra where we said:
The statute of limitations is not involved in the case at bar.
Where the issue of notice is concerned, the failure to give required statutory notice may be excused. One of the circumstances justifying excusing the notice is that the injury from an accident did not become apparent until some time after the accident. Under such circumstances, the time for giving statutory notice to the employer begins to run from the time the injuries became apparent.
Id. at 530 P.2d at 1019.
The instant case is controlled by the above stated rule. Initially, Anglen thought his problem was simply a muscle pull. Later he attributed the pain in his back to a kidney infection. The evidence was undisputed. Analogous facts were involved in B.K. Daniel Motor Company v. Washington. There a worker suffered injury after being thrown against a concrete floor by an explosion. He claimed he gave the statutory notice within the required time limit after he discovered his injuries were caused by this accident. He had earlier attributed headaches, neck and back pains to a prior injury which resulted in loss of an eye. In such circumstances we, in part, ruled failure to literally follow the notice requirement was excused. We see no principled distinction on the undisputed facts disclosed on this record.1 Consequently, we believe the trial judge abused his discretion as to the good cause determination and such determination was not reasonably supported by competent evidence.
For the above stated reasons, the opinion of the Court of Appeals is VACATED, the decision of the Workers’ Compensation Court is REVERSED and the matter is REMANDED for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
HODGES, V.C.J., and LAVENDER, DOOLIN, KAUGER and SUMMERS, JJ., concur.
ALMA WILSON, J., concurs specially.
OPALA, C.J., and SIMMS and HARGRAVE, JJ., dissent.

. In his dissent Justice Simms takes the view B.K. Daniel Motor Company v. Washington is distinguishable because he says the injury there did not become apparent until some time after the accident, whereas here the injury was apparent at the time of the accident, but perhaps Anglen was not aware of the extent of injury. The argument appears to coincide with the attempt to make § 24.2 a second statute of limitation, something we said in B.K. Daniel its predecessor, § 24, was not. B.K. Daniel cannot be distinguished on its facts as the dissent posits. Although the claimant there did testify he did not think anything was wrong with him, the facts disclosed the force of an explosion threw him against a concrete floor, “stunning him”. The definition of stun is, “to make senseless, groggy, or dizzy by or as if by a blow.” WEBSTER'S NEW COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY 1148 (1979). Clearly, just as here, the claimant in B.K. Daniel was aware some injury had occurred at the time of the accident. One is not stunned by being thrown against a concrete floor by the force of an explosion without being aware some injury occurred, although one may think it is of a slight or temporary nature, just as Anglen initially thought he had merely suffered a slight or temporary muscle pull. Further, the claimant in B.K. Daniel did not connect severe headaches, back and neck pain with the work-related accident until later, the same situation evident from this record, where Anglen thought his symptoms of back pain after the accident were related to a kidney problem. Thus, B.K. Daniel is analogous to the facts presently before us and unless we depart from the ruling there the outcome here should follow our pronouncement in that case.