awareness doctrine in Oklahoma

2005The only issue presented there was "whether apportionment of liability is proper when a cumulative trauma injury occurs during employment with a single employer who has had two successive insurers." In its consideration of that question, the Supreme Court expressly overruled Oklahoma Petroleum Workers' Compensation Association v. Mid-Continent Casualty Co., 1994 OK CIV APP 107 , 887 P.2d 335 .

1995While one panel of the Court of Appeals, in Oklahoma Petroleum Workers’ Compensation Association v. Mid-Continent Casualty Co., 887 P.2d 335 (Okla.App.1994) (cert. denied), held sole liability may be assigned for cumulative trauma injuries under the awareness doctrine, I find that holding is inconsistent with, and implicitly overruled by, the Supreme Court in its subsequent opinion in Red Rock Mental Health v. Roberts, 65 O.B.J. 4047, — P.2d - (Okla.1994) (rehearing pending).

2009The opinion further acknowledged that "many [have] argued this amendment signaled the end of the use of the awareness doctrine on all cumulative trauma matters." Id. at 19, 148 P.3d at 876-77 .

2009Like the Court in Ellis, we conclude that the date of awareness continues to be the determinative date of injury in cumulative trauma cases, because "no legislation passed since [the rule of awareness] was [last] decided indicates that the Legislature disagrees with [this] rule." Id. at ¶9, 148 P.3d at 877 . {9 We hold the Court of Civil Appeals erred in failing to apply the awareness test in determining the date of injury for the cumulative trauma claim at issue.

2009The opinion then points out, however, that this argument was rejected in Rankin v. Ford Motor Co., 1996 OK 94 , 925 P.2d 39 .

2009The opinion then points out, however, that this argument was rejected in Rankin v. Ford Motor Co., 1996 OK 94 , 925 P.2d 39 .

2009The Court of Civil Appeals gave particular emphasis to the observation in the Polston case that "repeated trauma, or cumulative trauma accidents are now governed by the date of last trauma and the awareness doctrine no longer applies." Polston, 1998 OK 78, ¶7 , 964 P.2d 210, 212 .

2009The Court of Civil Appeals gave particular emphasis to the observation in the Polston case that "repeated trauma, or cumulative trauma accidents are now governed by the date of last trauma and the awareness doctrine no longer applies." Polston, 1998 OK 78, ¶7 , 964 P.2d 210, 212 .

2006Secondly, the Hines Court did not fully examine the impropriety of giving § 11(B)(5) retroactive effect. ¶ 4 It is well established in our Workers' Compensation jurisprudence that the law in effect on the date of injury "forms a portion of the contract of employment and determines the substantive rights and obligations of the parties." Cole v. Silverado Foods, Inc., 2003 OK 81 , 78 P.3d 542 .

2006Secondly, the Hines Court did not fully examine the impropriety of giving § 11(B)(5) retroactive effect. ¶ 4 It is well established in our Workers' Compensation jurisprudence that the law in effect on the date of injury "forms a portion of the contract of employment and determines the substantive rights and obligations of the parties." Cole v. Silverado Foods, Inc., 2003 OK 81 , 78 P.3d 542 .

2002In Hooks v. State, 1993 OK CR 41 , 862 P.2d 1273 , cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1100 , 114 S.Ct. 1870 , 128 L.Ed.2d 490 , the defendant was aware that the victim (his girlfriend) was 24 weeks pregnant with his child. [19] This awareness requirement does not conflict with the Oklahoma Supreme Court's conclusion in Nealis that a nonviable fetus born alive is a person.

2002In Hooks v. State, 1993 OK CR 41 , 862 P.2d 1273 , cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1100 , 114 S.Ct. 1870 , 128 L.Ed.2d 490 , the defendant was aware that the victim (his girlfriend) was 24 weeks pregnant with his child. [19] This awareness requirement does not conflict with the Oklahoma Supreme Court's conclusion in Nealis that a nonviable fetus born alive is a person.

2002In Hooks v. State, 1993 OK CR 41 , 862 P.2d 1273 , cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1100 , 114 S.Ct. 1870 , 128 L.Ed.2d 490 , the defendant was aware that the victim (his girlfriend) was 24 weeks pregnant with his child. [19] This awareness requirement does not conflict with the Oklahoma Supreme Court's conclusion in Nealis that a nonviable fetus born alive is a person.

2002In Hooks v. State, 1993 OK CR 41 , 862 P.2d 1273 , cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1100 , 114 S.Ct. 1870 , 128 L.Ed.2d 490 , the defendant was aware that the victim (his girlfriend) was 24 weeks pregnant with his child. [19] This awareness requirement does not conflict with the Oklahoma Supreme Court's conclusion in Nealis that a nonviable fetus born alive is a person.

2002Nealis, 996 P.2d at 453-54 .

2002Nealis, 996 P.2d at 453-54 .

1998Goodrich Co. v. Williams, 1988 OK 62 , 755 P.2d 676 . ¶ 9 The issue here revolves around the first prong of the awareness test — when Claimant became aware of her injury.

1998Goodrich Co. v. Williams, 1988 OK 62 , 755 P.2d 676 . ¶ 9 The issue here revolves around the first prong of the awareness test — when Claimant became aware of her injury.

1998The second prong of the awareness test is not at issue because it is clear from the record that Claimant associated the numbness and pain in her hands with her work at the keyboard. ¶ 10 Our review of various Oklahoma decisions indicates that, in fixing the date of a cumulative trauma injury, a workers’ compensation court may consider a multitude of factors, including, but not limited to, the date on which the claimant’s condition forces himíor her to seek medical treatment, the date on which the claimant’s condition worsens to the point where the claimant is no longer able to work, or the dat

1998The second prong of the awareness test is not at issue because it is clear from the record that Claimant associated the numbness and pain in her hands with her work at the keyboard. ¶ 10 Our review of various Oklahoma decisions indicates that, in fixing the date of a cumulative trauma injury, a workers’ compensation court may consider a multitude of factors, including, but not limited to, the date on which the claimant’s condition forces himíor her to seek medical treatment, the date on which the claimant’s condition worsens to the point where the claimant is no longer able to work, or the dat

1995Although we remanded the case to the trial court after recognizing the possibility of apportioning liability between insurance carriers “if competent evidence supports such apportionment,” we also indicated the trial court should have “applied the traditional two-pronged awareness test of Coy to determine the date of injury for purposes of establishing the liability of the insurance carriers.” Kerr, 902 P.2d at 1129 .

1995These issues, and the supporting arguments and citation of legal authority, are substantially the same, if not identical, to those raised by the same parties in Kerr Glass Co. v. Wilson, 880 P.2d 414 (OklaApp. 1994) (cert, denied).

1994In Parks v. Flint Steel Corp., 755 P.2d 680 (Okla.1988), the Oklahoma Supreme Court addressed the issue of the respective liability of two employers for the claimant’s cumulative trauma injury.

1993Under the teaching of Marley Cooling Tower, Inc., supra, Choate would then have had an additional two years after November 1, 1985 to file his claim against either the employer or the Fund. 814 P.2d at 475-476 . 19 Thus, evidence exists that Choate’s claim was timely when filed against the Fund in March of 1987.

1992In McDonald v. Time, D.C., 773 P.2d 1252 (Okla. 1989), this Court discussed at length the awareness doctrine as related to single event injuries.

1992In McDonald v. Time, D.C., 773 P.2d 1252 (Okla.1989), this Court discussed at length the awareness doctrine as related to single event injuries.

1989Actionable tort claims favorably affected by Oklahoma's tort discovery rule include medical malpractice claims ( Seitz v. Jones, Okl., 370 P.2d 300, 302 [1962]); claims generated by pollution of a stream ( Continental Oil Co. v. Williams, 207 Okl. 501 , 250 P.2d 439, 441 [1952]); claims for damage to realty ( Harper-Turner Oil Company v. Bridge, Okl., 311 P.2d 947, 950 [1957]); and claims for negligent exposure to an infectious disease with latent symptoms ( Sloan v. Canadian Valley Animal Clinic, Inc., Okl.App., 719 P.2d 474 [1986]). [13] Although the awareness rule that is applied to a cumul

1989Actionable tort claims favorably affected by Oklahoma’s tort discovery rule include medical malpractice claims (Seitz v. Jones, Okl., 370 P.2d 300, 302 [1962]); claims generated by pollution of a stream (Continental Oil Co. v. Williams, 207 Okl. 501 , 250 P.2d 439, 441 [1952]); claims for damage to realty (Harper-Turner Oil Company v. Bridge, Okl., 311 P.2d 947, 950 [1957]); and claims for negligent exposure to an infectious disease with latent symptoms (Sloan v. Canadian Valley Animal Clinic, Inc., Okl.App., 719 P.2d 474 [1986]). .Although the awareness rule that is applied to a cumulative-ef