300 P.3d 1188
Okla.2013Background
- Claimant Naney Bertrand injured her right foot on August 8, 2005, while employed as a child care worker for Employer Laura Dester Center.
- Claimant’s injury arose out of and in the course of employment; she sought certiorari review of a COCA decision upholding a WCC denial of travel costs for vocational retraining.
- Prior to August 26, 2011, Rule 89(B) permitted mileage reimbursement for travel related to medical treatment, vocational evaluations, and vocational retraining.
- The 2011 Workers’ Compensation Code enacted § 326(K) restricting mileage reimbursement to amounts exceeding 20 miles round-trip, and later amended Rule 39 to eliminate travel for vocational retraining.
- The vocational evaluation recommended retraining at Northeast Technology Center in Pryor, outside Claimant’s hometown, with travel necessary to participate in Option B.
- The court ultimately held that Claimant is entitled to travel costs for fourteen miles round-trip to the retraining facility and remanded for proceedings consistent with the opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether travel costs for vocational retraining are payable. | Bertrand entitled under former Rule 39(B) for mileage to retraining. | Code § 326(K) eliminated mileage for vocational retraining. | Yes; travel costs for retraining are recoverable under former rule. |
| Does § 326(K) eliminate mileage for vocational retraining when injury occurred before Code? | Code does not retroactively bar pre‑existing entitlement. | § 326(K) governs mileage limits post‑Code. | Pre‑Code entitlement preserved; § 326(K) does not bar retraining mileage in this context. |
| Which rules apply to Claimant’s travel reimbursement at time of injury? | Rule 39(B) in effect at injury governs. | Code governs mileage; new rule applies. | Rule 39(B) applicable; travel costs must be reimbursed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. Vickers, Inc., 1990 OK 108, 799 P.2d 621 (OK (1990)) (relevance to retroactivity and retraining travel benefits)
- Williams Companies, Inc. v. Dunkelgod, 2012 OK 96, 295 P.3d 1107 (OK (2012)) (recovery of travel costs tied to vocational retraining requires meaningful access to rehab)
- Estes v. ConocoPhillips Co., 2008 OK 21, 184 P.3d 518 (OK (2008)) (rules and their force as lawmaking expressions; applicability to claims)
- Renfrow v. Ittleson, 1925 OK 403, 236 P. 585 (OK (1925)) (early authority on statutory/rule authority in workers’ comp)