Corbeil v. Emricks Van & Storage, Guarantee Insurance
404 P.3d 856
| Okla. | 2017Background
- Corbeil injured on July 25, 2015 while lifting at work and was ultimately diagnosed with bilateral inguinal hernias; surgery repaired both hernias on February 2, 2016.
- Employer paid six weeks of temporary total disability (TTD) benefits and denied additional TTD after a period totaling ~31 weeks off work.
- Corbeil sought an additional six weeks of TTD under 85A O.S. Supp. 2013 § 61(B)(1), arguing the statute provides up to six weeks per hernia (two hernias → up to 12 weeks).
- Employer argued prior case law treats bilateral hernias from a single incident (and repaired simultaneously) as one compensable injury subject to a single statutory TTD limit.
- The ALJ and the Workers’ Compensation Commission (en banc) agreed with Employer and limited Corbeil to six weeks; the Supreme Court reviewed statutory interpretation de novo.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §61 permits up to six weeks TTD for each hernia even when hernias arise from a single incident | Corbeil: §61 treats "a hernia" as the compensable unit, so each hernia can trigger up to six weeks (thus two hernias → up to 12 weeks) | Employer: Under prior statutes and caselaw, bilateral hernias from one accident (especially repaired simultaneously) constitute one injury and merit only one statutory TTD award | Court: §61’s language and amendments show legislative intent to treat each hernia as a potential compensable injury; remanded for proceedings consistent with allowing up to six weeks per hernia |
| Whether prior caselaw bindingly limits interpretation of the revised statute | Corbeil: Legislature changed wording—removing phrasing like "an injury resulting in hernia"—so prior construction need not control | Employer: Legislative familiarity presumes continuation of prior interpretation unless clearly changed | Court: Legislative wording changes indicate intent to alter prior law; where amendatory language departs from prior statute, courts may infer a change in law |
| Whether ALJ’s ruling that the change was a "distinction without a difference" was correct | Corbeil: that characterization ignores the substantive textual changes | Employer: no material change in outcome; purpose unchanged | Court: ALJ erred as the statutory changes are unambiguous and effectuate a different rule |
| Whether delay in authorizing surgery entitles Corbeil to additional TTD | Corbeil: Employer’s delay caused extended disability | Employer: issue not adjudicated below | Court: Issue not raised before ALJ or Commission, so not considered on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Speer v. Petrolite Spec. Polymers Group, 918 P.2d 92 (Okla. Civ. App. 1996) (held bilateral hernias generally subject to single statutory TTD limit unless caused by separate accidents)
- Century Granite Co. v. McDowell, 528 P.2d 302 (Okla. 1974) (upheld single period of TTD for two hernias repaired together)
- Townley’s Dairy v. Gibbons, 395 P.2d 947 (Okla. 1964) (similar holding limiting TTD for bilateral inguinal hernias)
- Special Indem. Fund v. Figgins, 831 P.2d 1379 (Okla. 1992) (statutory amendments retaining language may carry prior construction unless contrary intent appears; amendments can indicate legislative change)
- Brown v. Claims Mgmt. Resources, Inc., 391 P.3d 111 (Okla. 2017) (confirms applicable standard that law at time of injury controls and reiterates de novo review for statutory interpretation)