Permanent Partial Disability (PPD) awards under the AWCA

How many weeks of PPD benefits can a claimant receive under the AWCA when they have prior adjudications before its enactment on February 1, 2014? A recent decision by the Oklahoma Supreme Court (Court) in Cantwell v. Flex-N-Gate gives us an answer.

The AWCA intentionally limited the maximum number of weeks for all PPD awards from the previous five hundred twenty (520) to three hundred fifty (350). “The sum of all permanent partial disability awards, excluding awards against the Multiple Injury Trust Fund, shall not exceed three hundred fifty (350) weeks.” Title 85A, Section 46(H). However, the AWCA retained language from the previous version of the Workers’ Compensation Act stating - “A permanent partial disability award or combination of awards granted an injured worker may not exceed a permanent partial disability rating of one hundred percent (100%) to any body part or to the body as a whole.” 85A, Section 45(C )(1). So what happens if a claimant had several injuries adjudicated in the Court of Existing Claims prior to the prior AWCA which, when totaled, resulted in 360 weeks of PPD awards, but only adds up to 71.3% PPD to the body as a whole?

In the Cantwell decision the Court held that it is the percentage of disability that controls in this situation, rather than the number of weeks of PPD awarded. In a 5-4 ruling, the majority held that the “application of 46(H), without consideration of Section 45(C ) (1), capped Cantwell’s benefits at the amount he had previously received, 71.3%. The Commission’s retroactive application of 46(H) affects Cantwell’s substantive right to 100% impairment under both Title 85 and the AWCA…and that the 100% limitation on PPD benefits controls over the number of weeks when awarding compensation for PPD where a claimant has both compensable awards for job related injuries that occurred prior to February 1, 2014.” In other words, the Court found there was a statutory conflict in the interplay between Sections 45 and 46, which could only be resolved in construing the “two statues together in order to avoid constitutional infirmity.”

The dissent wrote that “[t]here is no support in statute or case law to require a claimant to reach 100% PPD before benefits may be limited by week paid. There is no need to reconcile the provisions of Sections 45(C) and 46(H), which complement each other.” And while recognizing that Cantwell would not have received any PPD award under the AWCA which may “result in harsh consequences in individual cases. But where the legislative language is clear - as it is here - it is not this Court’s job to parse the statutes to escape those consequences.”

So under the analysis set out by the majority, Cantwell can now potentially receive an additional 28.7% PPD to the body as a whole as a result of his new claim filed in the WC Commission - the very result which the AWCA had sought to prevent with its enactment.

While this case is interesting in its examination of statutory interpretation, the practical effect should be somewhat limited in scope. We recommend a thorough vetting of prior adjudications in order to determine what limitations on PPD may come into play with any injury claims after February 1, 2014.