This appeal presents only one issue: whether it is mandatory for fees for legal services to be commuted to a lump sum when the claimant is awarded permanent total disability benefits against the Special Indemnity Fund.
*432The undisputed facts are that Roy Taylor, Don Orr, and Robert L. Wilson (collectively, Claimants) were awarded permanent total disability (PTD) compensation from the Special Indemnity Fund (Fund). Taylor’s and Orr’s attorney fees were ordered to be paid in periodic payments while Wilson’s attorney fees were commuted to a lump sum.
All three orders were timely appealed, and the cases were consolidated. The Court of Appeals held that Okla.Stat. tit. 85, § 172 (1981) and Special Indemnity Fund v. Hobbs, 196 Okla. 318, 164 P.2d 980 (1945), prohibit lump-sum payment of attorney fees from the Fund.
The issue presented apparently brings two statutes into conflict. Section 30 of the Workers’ Compensation Act (the Act) provides that “[c]laims for legal services for permanent total disability awards or death awards may be paid in a lump sum which shall be deducted from the periodic compensation payments at a rate of ten .percent (10%) per payment until the attorney fee is satisfied.” Okla.Stat. tit. 85, § 30 (1981). We construed this statute in Chamberlain v. American Airlines, 740 P.2d 717 (Okla.1987), and held that, when a claimant is awarded PTD compensation, section 30 mandates that the legal fees be commuted to a lump sum.
In contrast section 172 states that “[i]n permanent total disability cases the [compensation paid from the Fund] shall be paid in periodic payments, as set forth in section 22 of the title, and shall not be commuted to a lump-sum payment.” The respondents argue that attorney fees are part of the compensation and that this statute prohibits the commutation of legal fees when an award is made from the Fund.
The general rule that a particular statute controls and acts as an exception to a general statute is set out in Williamson v. Evans, 319 P.2d 1112 (Okla.1957):
A statute which is enacted for the primary purpose of dealing with a particular subject, and which prescribes the terms and conditions of that particular subject matter, prevails over a general statute which does not refer to the particular subject matter, but does contain language which might be broad enough to cover the subject matter if the special statute was not in existence.
Id. at 1113. We restated the rule in State ex rel. White v. Beeler, 327 P.2d 664 (Okla.1958):
Where there are two provisions of the statutes, one of which is special and particular and clearly includes the matter in controversy, and where the special statute covering the subject prescribes different rules and procedure from those in the general statute, it will be held that the special statute applies to the subject matter, and the the general statute does not apply.
Id. at 665.
The particular subject matter of this case is attorney fees paid from the Fund. Section 30 was enacted primarily to deal with attorney fees and does not distinguish between cases against employers and the Fund. Also, section 30 exclusively establishes the maximum amount of legal fees that an attorney can collect, whether the fees must be paid periodically or in a lump sum, and the means by which an employer, an insurance carrier, or the Fund can recoup the attorney fees after an award is made. Section 30 is the only statute in the Act which directly addresses attorney fees.
Section 172 was enacted primarily to provide adequate compensation to disabled employees who suffer a subsequent injury which results in additional disability and to establish the liability of the employer, or the insurance carrier, and the Fund. While section 172 specifically requires claimant’s awards be made in periodic payments, it is conspicuously silent on attorney fees and the method of their payment. Section 172 contains language broad enough to cover attorney fees after an award from the Fund, but “does not refer to the particular subject matter.” Even if section 172 can be construed to include attorney fees within its scope, it does so indirectly and without the comprehensiveness or particularity of section 30.
*433Because section 30 is a more specific statute on the award of attorney fees and does not distinguish between awards against employers, insurance carriers, and the Fund and because section 172 is silent on the method of payment of attorney fees, section 30 controls over section 172 as to the method of payment of attorney fees. Therefore, we hold that attorney fees after an award from the Fund must be paid in a lump sum. This holding is made after balancing the policy against depleting the Fund against the policy underlying section 30, that is to insure that legal fees are paid and that claimants have competent legal representation. A contrary result would discriminate and unjustly penalize an attorney, and indirectly a claimant, in a PTD claim against the Fund.
The Fund relies on Special Indemnity Fund v. Hobbs, 196 Okla. 318, 164 P.2d 980 (1945), and Special Indemnity Fund v. Bryant, 205 Okla. 630, 239 P.2d 1014 (1952). These cases are not controlling authority for the case at bar. At the time Hobbs was decided, section 30 did not include a provision for lump-sum payments of attorney fees after a PTD award. See, Okla.Stat. tit. 85, § 30 (1941). Since the 1977 amendment of section 30, we are faced with a potential statutory conflict which we were not faced with in Hobbs. Bryant is distinguishable in that it held only that the combined payments to the claimant and his attorney could not exceed the statutory maximum benefit. Because these two cases are not applicable to the present case, they do not affect our decision.
CERTIORARI PREVIOUSLY GRANTED; COURT OF APPEALS OPINION VACATED; CAUSE REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO COMMUTE ATTORNEY FEES TO LUMP-SUM PAYMENTS.
HARGRAVE, C.J., and DOOLIN, ALMA WILSON and KAUGER, JJ., concur. OPALA, V.C.J., and LAVENDER, SIMMS and SUMMERS, JJ., dissent.