MULTIPLE INJURY TRUST FUND v. MACKEY
2017 Okla. LEXIS 78
| Okla. | 2017Background
- Claimant Mackey had prior adjudications awarding disability (including prior permanent total disability) for right arm/hand, lungs, and both hands, and sustained a later work injury to his left shoulder in 2013.
- Workers’ Compensation Court of Existing Claims found Mackey was a “physically impaired person” and awarded permanent total disability (PTD) liability to the Multiple Injury Trust Fund (MITF) based on combination of prior adjudicated disabilities and the last left-shoulder injury.
- The Court of Civil Appeals vacated that award, reading the 2011 proviso to 85 O.S. §402(A)(4) to require that any prior adjudication relied on to qualify a claimant as “physically impaired” must be to the same body part injured in the later claim (i.e., a jurisdictional same-body-part rule).
- The Oklahoma Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve whether the proviso modifies the jurisdictional definition of “physically impaired person” or instead limits which preexisting (including Crumby) disabilities may be combined for MITF liability determination.
- The Supreme Court majority held the proviso governs combinability for MITF liability (allowing certain Crumby findings to be combined only if to the same body part as the last injury) rather than creating a new jurisdictional prerequisite; it reinstated the award against MITF.
- A dissent argued the proviso is plainly a limitation on the immediately preceding definitional clause and thus narrows who qualifies as a “physically impaired person,” making same-body-part a jurisdictional requirement that Mackey did not meet.
Issues
| Issue | Mackey (Plaintiff) | MITF (Defendant) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the §402(A)(4) proviso create a jurisdictional same-body-part requirement for “physically impaired person”? | Proviso is not jurisdictional; §402(A)(4) still admits prior adjudications generally and Mackey qualifies. | Proviso is jurisdictional: only prior adjudications to the same body part as the last injury qualify. | Proviso does not add a jurisdictional restriction; it governs combinability for MITF liability. |
| Are previously adjudicated disabilities (including prior PTD awards) conclusive and bar a second PTD/MITF award? | Prior PTD is not conclusive; extent of prior disability at time of subsequent injury is factual and a claimant can be PTD more than once if separate injuries occur. | MITF contends it has already paid for Mackey’s PTD effects and awarding again improperly expands statutory liability; prior adjudication should be binding absent a finding of change for the better. | Prior adjudications are not conclusive on extent of disability at subsequent injury; a claimant may be PTD more than once. |
| Do Crumby findings (contemporaneous findings of preexisting disability) combine with last-injury disability for MITF liability? | Crumby findings that are relevant may be combined with last-injury disability to reach PTD when allowed by statute; here combination was permissible under majority’s reading. | MITF argues Crumby findings were historically excluded from qualifying as prior adjudications for jurisdictional purposes and should not expand liability. | The proviso permits combining Crumby-type preexisting disability with last-injury disability for MITF liability only when the preexisting disability is to the same body part as the last injury. |
Key Cases Cited
- Multiple Injury Trust Fund v. Wade, 180 P.3d 1205 (Okla. 2008) (adjudication of the last injury must be completed before recovery from MITF)
- J.C. Penney Co. v. Crumby, 584 P.2d 1325 (Okla. 1978) (Crumby findings are contemporaneous determinations of preexisting disability)
- Ball v. Multiple Injury Trust Fund, 360 P.3d 499 (Okla. 2015) (Legislature intended to limit MITF liability; Crumby findings do not by themselves confer ‘‘physically impaired person’’ jurisdictional status)
- Special Indemnity Fund v. Doughty, 558 P.2d 396 (Okla. 1976) (prior adjudication of permanent disability is not conclusive on extent of prior disability at time of subsequent injury)
- Special Indemnity Fund v. Betterton, 925 P.2d 86 (Okla. Civ. App. 1996) (a claimant may be permanently totally disabled more than once from separate injuries)
- Special Indemnity Fund v. Carson, 852 P.2d 157 (Okla. 1993) (Crumby finding is contemporaneous and not a “previous adjudication” for jurisdictional purposes)
- Multiple Injury Trust Fund v. Sugg, 362 P.3d 222 (Okla. 2015) (discussing legislative intent and limits on Fund liability)