BALL v. MULTIPLE INJURY TRUST FUND, 2015 OK 64

Background

Jeanette Ball suffered a work-related injury on July 14, 2009; the Workers' Compensation Court awarded permanent partial disability and made Crumby findings of preexisting disabilities (6% back, 8% psychological) in the same order.
Ball later settled with her employer and then filed a Form 3F (Aug. 15, 2012) seeking permanent total disability (PTD) benefits from the Multiple Injury Trust Fund ("the Fund"), alleging additional non-adjudicated impairments and relying on expert testimony that combined disabilities produced PTD.
Fund-appointed and claimant experts examined Ball; physicians for the Fund found no combinable injuries producing PTD, while claimant experts said combination could produce PTD.
The trial court awarded PTD benefits against the Fund, finding the Crumby findings combinable with the adjudicated injury. A three-judge panel vacated that award; the Court of Civil Appeals (COCA) reversed the panel.
The Oklahoma Supreme Court granted certiorari and held that, under the 2005 statutes, a claimant must already be a "physically impaired person" as defined in 85 O.S. § 171 at the time of the subsequent injury; a Crumby finding made contemporaneously with adjudication of the later injury cannot satisfy that prerequisite.

Issues

Issue	Ball's Argument	Fund's Argument	Held
Whether a Crumby finding made simultaneously with adjudication of a later on-the-job injury qualifies as a "previous adjudication" under 85 O.S. Supp. 2005 § 171, making the claimant a "physically impaired person" entitled to Fund recovery	Crumby findings are "previous adjudications" under § 171; combined disabilities (Crumby + later injury) produce PTD so Fund liability should attach	§ 171 requires a prior adjudication that predates the subsequent injury adjudication; contemporaneous Crumby findings do not qualify, so Fund lacks jurisdiction	Held for Fund: Crumby findings made contemporaneously with adjudication of the later injury cannot be combined to meet § 171's "previous adjudications" requirement; claimant not entitled to Fund recovery on that basis
Whether the 2005 amendments to §§ 171–172 removed the jurisdictional requirement that a claimant be a "physically impaired person" to bring a Fund claim	Ball: 2005 amendments reinstated Fund liability for PTD and should be read to allow Fund claims without a preexisting physically impaired status	Fund: 2005 amendments restored limited PTD liability but did not eliminate the statutory prerequisite that claimant be a "physically impaired person" at the time of the subsequent injury	Held for Fund: 2005 amendments did not remove the jurisdictional requirement; claimant must meet § 171 definition before seeking Fund relief
Whether Crumby findings constitute "any disability resulting from separately adjudicated injuries and adjudicated occupational diseases even though arising at the same time" under § 171	Ball: alternative statutory language in § 171 fits Crumby findings as previous adjudications	Fund: Crumby findings are simultaneous, not separately adjudicated injuries; thus they do not fall within that clause	Held for Fund: Crumby findings are not "separately adjudicated" injuries as contemplated by § 171 and therefore do not qualify
Whether COCA's contrary rulings (allowing contemporaneous Crumby findings to qualify) should control	Ball relied on COCA decision below and related COCA precedent	Fund urged fidelity to precedent (Carson) and statutory text; Supreme Court must harmonize statutory scheme	Held for Fund: Supreme Court vacated COCA's opinion and overruled related COCA decision (Perry), reaffirming Carson's rule under the 2005 statute

Key Cases Cited

Special Indem. Fund v. Carson, 852 P.2d 157 (Okla. 1993) (contemporaneous Crumby findings are not prior adjudications under §171)
J.C. Penney Co. v. Crumby, 584 P.2d 1325 (Okla. 1978) (definition and purpose of Crumby findings to quantify preexisting impairment)
Multiple Injury Trust Fund v. Wade, 180 P.3d 1205 (Okla. 2008) (describing Fund's role: employer liable for subsequent injury; Fund supplements for combinable excess)
St. John Med. Ctr. v. Bilby, 160 P.3d 978 (Okla. 2007) (statutory construction: apply unambiguous language as written)
Special Indem. Fund v. Figgins, 831 P.2d 1379 (Okla. 1992) (Fund liability principles; employer liability vs. Fund responsibility)
Special Indem. Fund v. Archer, 847 P.2d 791 (Okla. 1993) (simultaneously occurring but separately adjudicated injuries and limits on Fund recovery)