| IN RE: TEENAMARIE CALLAHAN | ) | DOCKET NO. 70,745 |
| ) | ||
| CLAIM NO. H-668250 | ) | DECISION AND ORDER |
| ) |
- APPEARANCES
- Claimant, Teenamarie A. Callahan, by
- William C. Decker, Esq.; Meade Brown, Legal Assistant
- Employer, Children's Industrial Home of Tacoma,
- None
- Department of Labor and Industries, by
- The Attorney General, per
- Deborah E. Hilsman, Assistant
This is an appeal filed by the claimant on June 3, 1985 from an order of the Department of Labor and Industries dated April 25, 1985 which adhered to the provisions of a prior order dated March 22, 1985, which had been issued pursuant to a Board Order on Agreement of Parties dated February 25, 1985, and further directed that payments were to be made in monthly installments, the unpaid balance of the permanent partial disability award to accrue interest at 6% per annum pursuant to RCW 51.32.080. The Department order is affirmed.
DECISION
Pursuant to RCW 51.52.104 and RCW 51.52.106, this matter is before the Board for review and decision on a timely Petition for Review filed by the Department of Labor and Industries to a Proposed Decision and Order issued on July 2, 1986 in which the order of the Department dated April 25, 1985 was reversed, and this matter remanded to the Department [2] of Labor and Industries with direction to close the claim pursuant to the Order of the Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals dated February 25, 1985, with time loss compensation as paid, and permanent partial disability awards of 3% of the maximum allowable for unspecified disabilites for a labyrinthine disturbance, 75% of the amputation value of the left leg above the knee joint with a short thigh stump, 75% of the amputation value of the right leg above the knee joint with a short thigh stump, and 100% complete loss of hearing in the right ear, less the previous advance on permanent partial disability, the balance of the permanent partial disability awards to be paid in installments, plus 8% interest per annum on the unpaid balance pursuant to RCW 51.32.080(4), as amended effective July 1, 1982.
The Board has reviewed the evidentiary rulings in the record of proceedings and finds that no prejudicial error was committed and said rulings are hereby affirmed.
The legal issue presented by this appeal is: Which statutory rate of interest should be paid on the unpaid balance of a permanent partial disability award under RCW 51.32.080(4) -- the rate in effect on the date of injury or the rate in effect on the date the Department awarded the permanent partial disability?
On the date of the claimant's industrial injury, RCW 51.32.080(4) provided for payment of 6% per annum interest on the unpaid balance of the permanent partial disability award. This section of the statute was amended effective July 1, 1982, increasing the interest rate to 8% per annum. On June 13, 1984, the Department closed this claim with various awards which were increased on appeal to the Board. The Department, by operation of RCW 51.32.080(4), awarded interest at 6% [3] per annum, on the unpaid balance of the permanent partial awards, contending that claimant's rate of interest is controlled by the rate in effect on the date of injury. Claimant contends that the interest rate is separate and unique from the award and should be controlled by the rate in effect when the award is made.
The law is well settled in this state that rights of claimants under the Workers' Compensation Act are controlled by the law in force at the time of the person's injury, rather than by a law which becomes effective subsequently. Thorpe v. Department of Labor and Industries, 145 Wash. 498 (1927); Foster v. Department of Labor and Industries, 161 Wash. 54 (1931); Sheldon v. Department of Labor and Industries, 168 Wash. 571 (1932); Lynch v. Department of Labor and Industries, 19 Wn.2d 802 (1944); Barlia v. Department of Labor and Industries, 23 Wn.2d 126 (1948); Bodine v. Department of Labor and Industries, 29 Wn.2d 879 (1948); Ashenbrenner v. Department of Labor and Industries, 62 Wn.2d 22 (1963).
Another basic rule of statutory construction is that a statute will be presumed to operate prospectively only, and that it will not be held to apply retrospectively in the absence of language clearly indicating such legislative intent. Lynch v. Department of Labor and Industries, supra.
We must then first look to the legislative intent in enacting the July 1, 1982 amendment, as to whether the Legislature intended to designate the law in effect at the time of injury or in effect when the award is made as controlling the rate of interest. No specific intent is articulated in the statute itself, nor is there any record of legislative discussion as to which interest rate would be applied to [4] injuries occurring before the effective date of the statute. However, keeping in mind the same rules of statutory construction cited by the court in Ashenbrenner, we must presume that the Legislature did not intend to overturn settled legal principles by implication. We must further presume that the Legislature was familiar with the rules, prior legislation, prior court decisions pertaining to prospective and retrospective effect of legislation, and the law governing the amount of awards of workers' compensation. We can only conclude that the Legislature intended no departure from the long established "date of injury" rule.
The crux of the claimant's argument is that interest on the unpaid balance of the permanent partial disability award is separate and distinct from that award, and that therefore the interest is not a benefit or right, but is a remedy applied now by statutory right for the loss of use of the money and that an amendment in the interest rate is a change in "procedure." If the interest is not a right but is distinct from and not a part of the award, claimant's argument is that an amendment to the section of the Act setting out the interest rate should be applied without regard to the date of injury, contrary to enforcement of other rights and benefits in the Industrial Insurance Act. We do not agree with claimant's contention.
RCW 51.32.080 is the section of the Industrial Insurance Act dealing with the schedule of awards for specified and unspecified permanent partial disability. The right to interest on unpaid balances of permanent partial disability awards is not contained in a separate or different part of the Act. As stated by the court in State v. Houk, 32 Wn.2d at 684 and 685: [5]
Statutes in pari materia must be construed together. Statutes in pari materia are those which relate to the same person or thing, or the same class of persons or things; and in construing a statute or statutes, all acts relating to the same subject matter or having the same purpose should be read in connection therewith as together constituting one law. The object of the rule is to ascertain and carry into effect the intent of the Legislature, and it proceeds upon the supposition that the several statutes having to do with related subject matters were governed by one spirit or policy, and were intended to be consistent and harmonious in their several parts and provisions. [citing cases]
We are persuaded that the interest awarded on unpaid balance of permanent partial disability awards relates to the same subject matter as the permanent partial disability award itself. In other words, the interest is part and parcel to the award. The interest provision is contained in the same provision of the Act as scheduled permanent partial disability awards; like a permanent partial disability award, it is unknown at the time of injury whether it will be made or in what amount; the interest is awarded automatically and is not dependent on actions of the employer or the claimant; the interest is a right to a benefit vested at the same time as the award and governed by the same statute as the award; the employer's experience rating and premium assessment is affected by both the award and the interest paid. Therefore, we conclude that the Department construed all of the provisions of RCW 51.32.080 together and correctly concluded that the rate of interest is controlled by the rate or schedule in effect on the date of injury, not by the rate in effect when the award was made.
The amendment increasing the rate of interest does not change a practice or procedure or remedy, and therefore does not fall within the exception recited in Nelson v. Department of Labor and Industries, 9 Wn.2d 621 (1941). Workers' Compensation Acts are considered remedial [6] in character. Despite this remedial concept, permanent partial disability awards are consistently determined by the law in effect on the date of injury. We are not persuaded that a claimant's right to interest is a "remedy" any more than a claimant's right to a permanent partial disability award itself. Since permanent partial disability award schedules are controlled by the schedule in effect on the date of injury, so is the rate of interest controlled by the rate in effect on the date of injury.
Proposed Findings 1, 2, 3 and 4, and Conclusion 1, are hereby adopted and incorporated herein as the Board's final findings and conclusions. We enter the following additional Conclusions of Law:
CONSLUSIONS OF LAW
2. The rate of interest on the unpaid balance of compensation for permanent partial disability awards pursuant to RCW 51.32.080(4) is controlled by the rate in effect on the date of injury.
3. The Department order of April 25, 1985 closing the claim with permanent partial disability awards of 3% of the maximum allowable for unspecified disabilities for a labyrinthine disturbance, 75% of the amputation value of the left leg above the knee joint with a short thigh stump, 75% of the amputation value of the right leg above the knee joint with a short thigh stump, and a 100% complete loss of hearing in the right ear, less previous advances on the permanent partial disability, and which ordered the balance of the permanent partial disability awards paid in installments, plus 6% per annum on the unpaid balance pursuant to RCW 51.32.080, is correct and is affirmed.
It is so ORDERED. [7]
Dated this 15th day of January, 1987.
BOARD OF INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE APPEALS
/s/
GARY B. WIGGS Chairperson
/s/
PHILLIP T. BORK Member