BALL v. MULTIPLE INJURY TRUST FUND
2015 OK 64
| Okla. | 2015Background
- Jeanette Ball sustained a work-related injury on July 14, 2009; the Workers' Compensation Court later awarded permanent partial disability for that injury and issued Crumby findings assessing preexisting (unrelated) impairments to her back and for psychological overlay.
- Ball settled her employer claim and then filed a Form 3F (Aug. 15, 2012) seeking permanent total disability (PTD) benefits from the Multiple Injury Trust Fund (the Fund), alleging combinable prior disabilities (including the Crumby findings and other non‑adjudicated impairments).
- Medical experts agreed Ball had substantial combined impairment but disputed whether the non‑adjudicated conditions or Crumby findings were combinable to establish Fund liability and whether she qualified as a "physically impaired person" under 85 O.S. § 171.
- The Workers' Compensation Court awarded PTD benefits against the Fund, finding the Crumby findings combinable; a three-judge panel vacated that award; the Court of Civil Appeals reversed the panel; the Supreme Court granted certiorari.
- The central legal question was whether a Crumby finding made contemporaneously with adjudication of the last (work) injury qualifies as a "previous adjudication of disability" (i.e., makes the claimant a "physically impaired person") under the 2005 version of 85 O.S. § 171, thereby creating jurisdiction to award Fund benefits.
Issues
| Issue | Ball's Argument | Fund's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a Crumby finding made simultaneously with adjudication of the work injury qualifies as a "previous adjudication of disability" under 85 O.S. Supp. 2005 § 171 | Crumby findings count as "previous adjudications" and may be combined with the adjudicated injury to create PTD and Fund liability | A "previous adjudication" must exist before the subsequent injury; a contemporaneous Crumby finding is not a prior adjudication and cannot create Fund jurisdiction | Held: A contemporaneous Crumby finding cannot be treated as a prior adjudication under the 2005 § 171; claimant must have been a physically impaired person before the subsequent injury to invoke Fund liability |
| Whether claimants must be a "physically impaired person" to seek Fund benefits under the 2005 statutory scheme | Ball argued the 2005 amendments (reinstating some Fund liability) removed the prerequisite that claimants first be physically impaired persons | Fund argued, and the Court agreed, that § 171 remains the jurisdictional gatekeeper and the claimant must meet that definition | Held: The statute unambiguously requires claimant to be a physically impaired person as defined in § 171 before Fund jurisdiction attaches |
| Whether COCA's contrary interpretation (that claimants need not prove prior impairment) is correct | Ball relied on COCA decisions holding Crumby findings combinable under post‑2005 law | Fund argued COCA misread § 172(B)(3) in isolation and ignored § 171's definitional requirement | Held: COCA's reading was incorrect and creates discord with the statutory framework; COCA opinion is vacated and prior precedent (Carson) controls |
| Whether simultaneously adjudicated but separately described injuries qualify as "separately adjudicated injuries" under § 171 | Ball contended Crumby findings fit within the statutory clause allowing "separately adjudicated injuries even though arising at the same time" | Fund maintained Crumby findings are not separately adjudicated but are simultaneous adjudications and thus not covered | Held: Crumby findings are simultaneous, not "separately adjudicated" injuries, and thus do not satisfy § 171's prerequisite for Fund recovery |
Key Cases Cited
- Special Indem. Fund v. Carson, 852 P.2d 157 (Okla. 1993) (a contemporaneous Crumby finding is not a prior adjudication required to qualify as a "physically impaired person")
- J.C. Penney Co. v. Crumby, 584 P.2d 1325 (Okla. 1978) (establishing Crumby findings as method to assess preexisting, unrelated impairment)
- Multiple Injury Trust Fund v. Wade, 180 P.3d 1205 (Okla. 2008) (describing Fund's role as supplementing employer liability for combined disabilities)
- St. John Med. Ctr. v. Bilby, 160 P.3d 978 (Okla. 2007) (statutory construction principles; context controls when language is unambiguous)
- Special Indem. Fund v. Figgins, 831 P.2d 1379 (Okla. 1992) (clarifying the Fund pays excess awards from combined disabilities)
- Autry v. Multiple Injury Trust Fund, 38 P.3d 213 (Okla. 2001) (legislative history showing progressive limitation/dissolution of Fund benefits)