MULTIPLE INJURY TRUST FUND v. WIGGINS
2017 OK 76
| Okla. | 2017Background
- Maggie Wiggins suffered a work-related back injury in September 2011 and the Workers' Compensation Court of Existing Claims found she had a preexisting back disability via a Crumby finding made in that same proceeding.
- The Court combined the Crumby preexisting disability with the last-injury disability and awarded permanent total disability against the Multiple Injury Trust Fund (MITF).
- The Court acknowledged Ball v. MITF (2015) generally precludes using Crumby findings to establish the "physically impaired person" status required for MITF recovery, but relied on a statutory proviso added to 85 O.S. § 402(A)(4) to allow combination when both disabilities affect the same body part.
- MITF appealed; the Court of Civil Appeals vacated the award, holding the proviso does not convert Crumby findings into qualifying "previous adjudications of disability" required to establish physically impaired person status.
- The Oklahoma Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve conflicts with Mackey and held Wiggins was not a physically impaired person at the time of her last injury, vacating the MITF award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Wiggins) | Defendant's Argument (MITF) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a Crumby finding made in the same proceeding can count as a "previous adjudication of disability" to qualify a claimant as a "physically impaired person" for MITF liability | The proviso to §402(A)(4) (same-body-part language) allows use of a Crumby finding when preexisting disability and last injury affect the same body part | Ball bars Crumby findings from qualifying as previous adjudications; the proviso only governs combinability after qualification | Held: Crumby finding does not satisfy the "previous adjudication" requirement; Wiggins was not a physically impaired person |
| Effect of the §402(A)(4) proviso ("that part of the body was deemed to have been injured in the claim being adjudicated") | Proviso allows Crumby disability to be combined with last-injury disability when same body part is involved, thereby enabling MITF recovery | Proviso governs combinability of preexisting disability with last-injury liability but presupposes the claimant already meets the physically impaired person requirement via prior adjudications | Held: Proviso permits combining Crumby disability for purposes of computing combined disability only if claimant otherwise qualifies as physically impaired; it does not convert Crumby findings into qualifying prior adjudications |
| Whether the Workers' Compensation Court had jurisdiction to award MITF benefits based on its Crumby finding | Wiggins contended the court properly adjudicated and combined disabilities and had jurisdiction | MITF argued lack of qualifying prior adjudication meant no physically impaired person existed, depriving the court of jurisdiction over an MITF award | Held: Court lacked jurisdiction to enter MITF award because Wiggins lacked prior adjudication qualifying her as a physically impaired person |
| Whether Ball v. MITF was superseded or altered by the legislative proviso | Wiggins argued the post-Ball proviso effectively altered Ball's rule in same-body-part cases | MITF argued Ball remains controlling as to what constitutes a "previous adjudication of disability" and the proviso did not change that rule | Held: Ball remains controlling; proviso did not alter exclusion of Crumby findings as qualifying prior adjudications |
Key Cases Cited
- J.C. Penney Co. v. Crumby, 584 P.2d 1325 (Okla. 1978) (allows judicial finding of preexisting disability—"Crumby" finding—when prior adjudication is lacking)
- Ball v. Multiple Injury Trust Fund, 360 P.3d 499 (Okla. 2015) (holds Crumby findings cannot be used to satisfy the "previous adjudications of disability" requirement for MITF eligibility)