The case of Hiskett v. Wells, 1959 OK 273, P14, 351 P.2d 300, 304 provides a test for determining the effect of a time-limitation for enforcing a statutory right. The test states: "Whether a particular limitation of time is to be regarded as part of the general statute of limitations, or as a qualification of a particular right must be determined from the language employed and from the connection in which it is used." Id. The language in 43(C) indicates that the "jurisdiction" of the workers' compensation court to reopen a claim extends for a set period of time. the language of 43(C) also requires an application to reopen to be filed within that time or be "forever barred." the use of "jurisdiction" in the version of 43 in effect in 1989 received special attention in Taylor v. City of Oklahoma City, 1989 OK 129, P4, 782 P.2d 1363, 1364-65. This case involved a motion to reopen for change of condition for the worse that was not timely filed. The respondent filed no response to the motion. at the close of the trial, "respondent argued the limitations period for filing the motion [to reopen] had expired, that petitioner was barred from asserting his claim and the Workers' Compensation Court was without jurisdiction." Id. The trial court ruled that the "claim for compensation was time-barred." Id., 782 P.2d at 1365. a three-judge panel affirmed the trial court's denial, but the Court of Appeals reversed. The Court of Appeals held that "the respondent's failure to raise the limitations question by responsive pleading constituted a waiver of that defense." Id. at P6, 782 P.2d at 1365. The supreme court "granted certiorari to consider the questions presented on the issue of limitations." Id.