MULTIPLE INJURY TRUST FUND v. WIGGINS
2017 Okla. LEXIS 77
| Okla. | 2017Background
- Ms. Wiggins claimed Multiple Injury Trust Fund (MITF) benefits after a job-related back injury; the Workers’ Compensation Court of Existing Claims found she was permanently totally disabled from the combination of a preexisting back disability (a Crumby finding) and the new injury.
- A “Crumby finding” is a factual finding of preexisting disability not previously adjudicated; Ball v. MITF later held Crumby findings cannot establish the status of a “physically impaired person” for MITF eligibility.
- The statutory provision at issue is 85 O.S.2011 §402(A)(4), which defines “physically impaired person” and contains a proviso restricting combination of preexisting adjudicated disability with the last injury unless the same body part was deemed injured in the claim being adjudicated.
- The Court of Existing Claims allowed combining the Crumby finding with the new injury because the proviso was added after Ball and (it reasoned) permitted Crumby findings to meet the physically impaired-person requirement when in the same body part.
- The Court of Civil Appeals vacated that award, holding the proviso does not convert Crumby findings into qualifying “previous adjudications of disability”; claimants still must have prior formal adjudications predating the last injury to qualify as physically impaired.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve conflict with Mackey and held Ms. Wiggins was not a physically impaired person at the time of the last injury, vacating the MITF award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the §402(A)(4) proviso allows a Crumby finding to establish "previous adjudication of disability" when preexisting and last-injury disabilities affect the same body part | Wiggins: the proviso (added after Ball) permits using a Crumby finding in same-body-part cases to meet the physically impaired-person requirement | MITF/Court of Civil Appeals: proviso limits combinability of adjudicated preexisting disability with the last injury; it does not convert Crumby findings into previous adjudications | Held: Crumby findings do not qualify as "previous adjudications of disability" for MITF eligibility; proviso merely allows combining a Crumby subtraction for employer liability when the same body part is involved, not to create eligibility |
| Whether the Workers’ Compensation Court had jurisdiction to award MITF benefits based on the combined disabilities here | Wiggins: Court had jurisdiction because it found combined permanent total disability including preexisting Crumby finding | MITF: Court lacked jurisdiction because Wiggins was not a "physically impaired person" under §402(A)(4) at time of injury | Held: Court lacked jurisdiction; award vacated |
Key Cases Cited
- J.C. Penney Co. v. Crumby, 584 P.2d 1325 (Okla. 1978) (establishes Crumby factual finding of preexisting disability)
- Ball v. Multiple Injury Trust Fund, 360 P.3d 499 (Okla. 2015) (held Crumby findings cannot be used to satisfy the "previous adjudication of disability" requirement for MITF eligibility)
- Mackey v. Multiple Injury Trust Fund, 406 P.3d 564 (Okla. 2017) (interpreted the §402(A)(4) proviso as permitting combination/subtraction of Crumby preexisting disability for employer liability when same body part is involved, but not as creating eligibility as a physically impaired person)