NIX v. FIRST STAFFING GROUP USA
2017 OK CIV APP 8
| Okla. Civ. App. | 2016Background
- Robert D. Nix was injured in a March 23, 2015 work-related truck rollover and transported to an emergency room where CT/x-rays were negative but he received IV medications (e.g., morphine, ondansetron, Toradol).
- Employer admitted the work injury and paid eight weeks of temporary total disability (TTD). Nix sought an additional eight weeks under 85A O.S. Supp. 2014 §62(A), which grants an 8-week extension if the employee "is treated with an injection or injections."
- The hospital record listed multiple medications with route identified as "IV." Employer stipulated an IV was given and related to the injury.
- The ALJ denied the extension, finding intravenous therapy is not an "injection" under §62(A); the Workers' Compensation Commission affirmed.
- The Court of Civil Appeals reviewed de novo whether IV therapy constitutes an "injection" under §62(A) and considered statutory language and prior definitions of "injection."
- The court reversed, holding that forcing fluids beneath the skin (including IV administration) qualifies as an "injection" under §62(A), entitling Nix to the additional eight weeks of TTD.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether IV administration qualifies as an "injection" under 85A O.S. §62(A) | Nix: IV forces fluids beneath the skin and therefore is an "injection," qualifying him for an 8-week TTD extension | Employer: Legislature intended "injection" to mean more invasive procedures (e.g., epidural); allowing IVs would produce illogical results (e.g., tetanus shot) and exceed intent | Court: "Injection" includes forcing fluids beneath the skin; IV therapy qualifies and plaintiff gets additional 8 weeks TTD |
| Whether an injection must be recommended by a treating physician to trigger extension | Nix: §62(A) removed the prior Code's recommendation requirement; any employee treated with an injection qualifies | Employer: implied requirement that injection be part of a treatment regimen or similar invasiveness to epidural | Court: The prior recommendation requirement was intentionally removed; treatment (not recommendation) controls |
| Whether the statutory phrase excluding epidural steroid injections from surgery limits what counts as an injection | Nix: exclusion only clarifies epidural is not surgery; does not narrow "injection" scope | Employer: exclusion implies only injections of similar invasiveness to epidural qualify | Court: The exclusion does not narrow the meaning; it simply clarifies epidurals are non-surgical and "injection" remains broad |
| Proper standard of review for statutory construction | Nix: statutory meaning is question of law subject to de novo review | Employer: N/A (accepted legal review) | Court: Applied de novo review and plain-meaning statutory interpretation |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilcoxson v. Woodward County EMS, 231 P.3d 1170 (Okla. Civ. App. 2010) (defined "injection" in earlier soft-tissue context as introduction of medicinal substance by needle/syringe)
- American Airlines v. Hervey, 33 P.3d 47 (Okla. 2001) (standard that statutory interpretation is reviewed de novo)
- Oklahoma City Zoo v. Public Employees Relations Bd., 158 P.3d 461 (Okla. 2007) (courts must follow plain statutory language and avoid reading in elements not on statute's face)
- Broadway Clinic v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 139 P.3d 873 (Okla. 2006) (respect for plain statutory meaning when determining legislative intent)