MULTIPLE INJURY TRUST FUND v. WIGGINS
2017 OK 76
| Okla. | 2017Background
- Maggie Wiggins suffered a work-related back injury in September 2011 and sought recovery from the Multiple Injury Trust Fund (MITF).
- The Workers' Compensation Court made a Crumby finding (a preexisting, non-adjudicated disability) for Wiggins' back just before adjudicating disability for the 2011 injury.
- The Court combined the Crumby finding and the last-injury disability, awarded permanent total disability, and assessed liability against MITF.
- The trial court acknowledged Ball v. MITF held Crumby findings do not qualify as prior adjudications to establish "physically impaired person" status, but interpreted a statutory proviso in 85 O.S. §402(A)(4) to allow combination when both disabilities affect the same body part.
- The Court of Civil Appeals vacated the award, holding the proviso does not convert Crumby findings into qualifying previous adjudications; a claimant still must have prior adjudications predating the last injury to be a "physically impaired person."
- The Oklahoma Supreme Court granted certiorari, followed Mackey, and vacated the MITF award, holding Wiggins was not a "physically impaired person" at the time of her last injury.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Wiggins) | Defendant's Argument (MITF) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a Crumby finding can satisfy the "previous adjudications of disability" requirement to qualify as a "physically impaired person" for MITF liability | The proviso in §402(A)(4) permits use of a Crumby finding when the preexisting disability and the last injury are in the same body part, so Wiggins qualifies | Ball excludes Crumby findings as qualifying "previous adjudications;" the proviso only governs combinability with the last injury, not qualification status | Crumby findings do not establish "physically impaired person" status; Wiggins did not qualify, so MITF award vacated |
| Whether the proviso in §402(A)(4) changed Ball's rule excluding Crumby findings from qualifying adjudications | The proviso, added after Ball, reflects legislative intent to allow Crumby findings to be used when same-body-part disabilities are involved | The proviso merely permits combining a Crumby subtraction when computing employer liability after the last-injury adjudication; it does not convert Crumby findings into prior adjudications | The proviso does not change Ball; it allows combination of Crumby disability for computing combined disability only when claimant already qualifies as physically impaired by proper prior adjudications |
Key Cases Cited
- Ball v. Multiple Injury Trust Fund, 360 P.3d 499 (Okla. 2015) (held Crumby findings cannot be used as "previous adjudications of disability" to establish MITF eligibility)
- J.C. Penney Co. v. Crumby, 584 P.2d 1325 (Okla. 1978) (established the Crumby procedure for finding preexisting, non-adjudicated disability)