BURSON v. CITY OF TULSA
486 P.3d 17
| Okla. Civ. App. | 2020Background
- Billy Burson, a Tulsa police officer, injured his right knee on the job on November 4, 2016.
- The City paid Burson full salary during his temporary disability (Feb 8–Mar 22, 2017) under 11 O.S. § 50-116.1 (total paid $7,106.88).
- Burson later obtained a permanent partial disability (PPD) finding (17% to the right knee) and an award of $15,100.25.
- The City sought reimbursement under 85A O.S. § 89 for wages it paid above the statutory temporary total disability (TTD) maximum and obtained a $3,796.10 credit deducted from Burson’s PPD award.
- An ALJ and an en banc Workers’ Compensation Commission panel affirmed the reimbursement/credit; Burson appealed arguing conflict between § 50-116.1 and § 89 and that the Commission exceeded its authority.
- The Court of Civil Appeals sustained the Commission, relying principally on the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s decision in Braitsch v. City of Tulsa and on statutory harmonization; the opinion is limited to application of § 89 to wages paid under § 50-116.1 as they existed at the time of injury.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 85A O.S. § 89 (reimbursement/deduction of wages paid over TTD maximum from PPD) is incompatible with 11 O.S. § 50-116.1 (municipal police full wages during temporary disability) | Burson: § 89 cannot be cohesively read with § 50-116.1; municipal statute should prevail | City: The statutes can be harmonized; § 89 applies to deduct wages paid over the TTD maximum as a credit against a later PPD award | Held: Statutes are compatible. Under Braitsch, § 50-116.1 permits full wages during TTD but § 89 allows deduction of amounts over the TTD cap from a PPD award; both apply in harmony |
| Whether § 89 is unconstitutional as applied (due process / special-law concerns) | Burson: application of § 89 here is improper (attempting to distinguish Braitsch) | City: § 89 has been upheld; Braitsch resolved similar constitutional challenges | Held: Court follows Braitsch—§ 89 is not unconstitutional on its face or as applied in this context |
| Whether the Workers’ Compensation Commission exceeded its authority by interpreting a non-AWCA statute (11 O.S. § 50-116.1) in applying the AWCA | Burson: Commission lacked authority to interpret statutes outside the AWCA | City: Commission may interpret statutes that affect AWCA application | Held: Commission had authority to interpret and apply § 50-116.1 insofar as it affects AWCA claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Braitsch v. City of Tulsa, 436 P.3d 14 (2018) (Oklahoma Supreme Court upholding § 89’s reimbursement/deduction mechanism and resolving similar due process and special-law challenges)
- Williams Companies, Inc. v. Dunkelgod, 295 P.3d 1107 (2012) (workers’ compensation claims are governed by law in effect at time of injury)
- King Mfg. v. Meadows, 127 P.3d 584 (2005) (same principle that claims are controlled by laws in effect at injury)
- Robinson v. Fairview Fellowship Home for Senior Citizens, Inc., 371 P.3d 477 (2016) (Workers’ Compensation Commission has authority to address issues arising in applying the AWCA)