BRAY v. PECOFACET HOUSTON, LLC
395 P.3d 857
| Okla. Civ. App. | 2017Background
- Claimant Edward Bray injured his left shoulder and complained of neck pain after a workplace incident on Sept. 10, 2015; employer admitted the shoulder claim but denied a neck injury.
- Employer provided initial shoulder care and ordered imaging; an MRI (Nov. 2015) showed no clear disc herniation or significant stenosis and noted a nonspecific C4 lesion.
- WCC authorized a change of physician for shoulder care; the new physician recommended spine/neurology evaluation for persistent neck complaints.
- Claimant privately obtained EMG/nerve conduction testing on Feb. 10, 2016, which showed cervical radiculopathy; the EMG results were not shown to have been provided to Employer before trial.
- The ALJ found Claimant sustained a work-related neck injury and ruled Employer failed to provide neck treatment within five days of actual knowledge, permitting Claimant to choose his physician; the WCC reversed, holding Employer retained the right to choose the physician.
- On appeal, the Court of Civil Appeals reviewed whether Employer had "actual knowledge" of the neck injury such that the five-day statutory period to provide care was triggered.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Employer had "actual knowledge" of Claimant's neck injury that triggered the 5-day statutory period under 85A O.S. §50(B) | Bray argued his formal claim, treating physicians' concerns, and later EMG established actual notice, so Employer failed to provide care within five days and he could choose his physician | Employer argued there was no express information of a neck injury before the EMG (which Employer had not received), so no actual notice occurred and Employer retained right to select physician | Court held Claimant failed to prove Employer had actual knowledge before Feb. 10, 2016 (EMG not shown to have been provided to Employer), so the five-day period never began and Employer kept the right to choose the physician |
| Whether a claimant must select a physician and incur unauthorized medical expenses to invoke the right to choose | Bray suggested selection/payment could demonstrate entitlement to choose a physician | Employer contended such a requirement was inappropriate and the record lacked evidence of unauthorized expenses | Court did not decide this issue because Claimant failed on the actual-knowledge element; declined to reach whether EMG/payment would suffice |
Key Cases Cited
- Leche v. Ponca City Production Credit Ass'n, 478 P.2d 347 (Okla. 1970) (actual notice may be inferred from facts but requires express information of the fact)
- Heffron v. District Court of Oklahoma County, 77 P.3d 1069 (Okla. 2003) (questions of statutory interpretation present issues of law reviewed de novo)
- Neil Acquisition, L.L.C. v. Wingrod Investment Corp., 932 P.2d 1100 (Okla. 1996) (appellate courts reexamine trial court legal rulings independently)
- First State Bank in Talihina v. United Dollar Stores, 571 P.2d 444 (Okla. 1977) (distinguishes actual notice from constructive notice)
- Creek Land & Improvement Co. v. Davis, 115 P. 468 (Okla. 1911) (definition and proof of actual notice can be based on knowledge of facts prompting reasonable investigation)