MARTIN v. CITY OF TULSA
489 P.3d 78
| Okla. Civ. App. | 2020Background
- James Brice Martin, a Tulsa firefighter, suffered a 2017 work-related right wrist injury and was off work for four months.
- Pursuant to a municipal statute (11 O.S. §49-111) and his collective bargaining agreement, Martin was paid his full salary during that disability period.
- He was later awarded $19,896.80 in permanent partial disability (PPD) for a 28% wrist impairment.
- The City calculated that Martin’s wages while disabled exceeded the statutory temporary disability maximum by $13,526.19 and sought a corresponding deduction under 85A O.S. Supp. 2014 §89.
- The ALJ reduced Martin’s PPD award by $13,526.19; the Workers’ Compensation Commission affirmed; Martin appealed raising four legal arguments.
- The Court of Civil Appeals reviewed de novo and affirmed the Commission, rejecting all four arguments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Statutory scope of §89 | §89 applies only to "advance payments for compensation," not ordinary salary payments | §89’s plain text applies to "any wages" over the temporary maximum | §89’s plain language covers "any wages"; deduction required |
| Conflict with 11 O.S. §49-111 | §49-111 (firefighters paid full salary) is a specific statute that prevents §89 offset | Both statutes can be complied with: §49-111 preserves salary; §89 reduces PPD, not salary | No conflict; both statutes can be honored; offset valid |
| Collective bargaining agreement (CBA) | CBA bars reduction of benefits; ALJ exceeded jurisdiction by applying §89 | CBA required full salary (which Martin received); §89 affects PPD benefit, not salary | CBA does not preclude §89 deduction; ALJ acted within authority |
| Home-rule / charter supremacy | City charter/home-rule should trump §89 as conflicting municipal law | Workers’ compensation laws are statewide, not municipal laws relating to municipalities; no conflict exists | Argument waived (not raised below) and substantively fails; no charter conflict |
Key Cases Cited
- Orcutt v. Lloyd Richards Pers. Serv., 239 P.3d 479 (use of de novo review for legal questions)
- Humphries v. Lewis, 67 P.3d 333 (plain-meaning statutory interpretation)
- Naylor v. Petuskey, 834 P.2d 439 (limited weight to statutory title when text is clear)
- Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. v. Cable, 585 P.2d 1113 (issues not raised below are waived on appeal)
- Braitsch v. City of Tulsa, 436 P.3d 14 (similar CBA issues do not conflict with §89)