MULTIPLE INJURY TRUST FUND v. GARRETT
2017 OK 62
Okla.2017Background
- Tommy Garrett sustained a compensable back/neck/arm injury in 1991 while working for ODOT; the parties executed a WCC-prescribed Joint Petition on August 13, 1992 that approved a settlement noting temporary total disability paid and a $100 payment described as for "temporary disability, permanent disability, ... which claimant now has or may hereafter have." The Joint Petition was approved and became final.
- Garrett suffered a second compensable on-the-job injury in 2007; he later settled that claim by Compromise Settlement in 2012 with specified impairment ratings for knees and back and a $125,000 award.
- Garrett filed a Form 3F in October 2012 seeking Permanent Total Disability (PTD) benefits from the Multiple Injury Trust Fund (MITF), asserting combined effects of the 1991 and 2007 injuries rendered him permanently and totally disabled.
- The MITF denied jurisdiction/ liability, arguing Garrett was not a "physically impaired person" at the time of the 2007 injury because there was no prior adjudication of permanent disability (i.e., no rated impairment) from 1991.
- The WCC (trial tribunal) found the 1992 Joint Petition constituted a prior adjudication and, relying on an IME that combined impairments and applied a material increase, awarded PTD benefits payable by the Fund. The Court of Civil Appeals reversed; the Oklahoma Supreme Court granted certiorari.
- The Oklahoma Supreme Court held that the 1992 Joint Petition is a prior adjudication of disability within §171, that Garrett qualified as a "physically impaired person," and that the combined injuries rendered him permanently and totally disabled — affirming the WCC award against the Fund.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Garrett) | Defendant's Argument (MITF) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 1992 WCC-approved Joint Petition constituted a prior "adjudication[] of disability adjudged and determined by the Workers' Compensation Court" under 85 O.S. § 171 | The Joint Petition approved by the WCC is a final adjudication of Garrett's injuries and disabilities, satisfying §171 even if it did not state a precise impairment percentage | The Joint Petition did not adjudicate permanent disability (it expressly contained the employer's denial); absent a prior adjudication with a quantified impairment, Garrett was not a "physically impaired person" at the time of the 2007 injury | The Court held the 1992 Joint Petition constituted a prior adjudication of disability under §171; lack of a numeric impairment rating in the form did not defeat its status as an adjudication |
| Whether a claimant may rely on a contemporaneous Crumby finding (rated assessment of preexisting impairment) made at the time of the subsequent injury to qualify as a "physically impaired person" under the 2005 §171 regime | Garrett relied on the IME and the tribunal’s combined assessment showing preexisting impairment and material increase to support PTD | MITF argued Ball forbids combining a Crumby finding made simultaneously with an adjudication of the subsequent injury to establish a §171 preexisting adjudication | The Court distinguished Ball because Garrett had a prior adjudication (the 1992 Joint Petition); once a claimant is a "physically impaired person" under §171 the dispositive question is PTD and a Crumby finding is relevant in assessing combined effects |
| Whether the combined injuries rendered Garrett permanently and totally disabled for purposes of MITF liability under §172(B)(3) | The IME and tribunal found synergistic effects, a material increase, and inability to return to the workforce given age/education/experience, supporting PTD | MITF contested the predicate (prior adjudication) and the tribunal’s reliance on the IME absent contrary evidence | The Court found the record supported PTD from combined injuries and affirmed award of PTD benefits payable by the Fund |
| Whether the absence of an explicit impairment percentage in the 1992 Joint Petition prevents treating it as an adjudication of disability | Garrett argued §171 does not require a quantified percentage; a final, approved joint petition is an adjudication | MITF argued §171 contemplates a prior adjudication with an ascertainable disability (and cited Ball) | The Court held §171 does not require a quantified percentage in the prior adjudication — the approved Joint Petition sufficed as an adjudication |
Key Cases Cited
- Ball v. Multiple Injury Trust Fund, 360 P.3d 499 (2015) (held a Crumby finding made simultaneously with adjudication of a subsequent injury cannot be used to qualify as a "physically impaired person" under the 2005 §171 when no prior adjudication exists)
- Multiple Injury Trust Fund v. Sugg, 362 P.3d 222 (2015) (explains that once claimant is a "physically impaired person" for post-November 1, 2005 injuries, the dispositive issue is whether claimant is permanently and totally disabled; Crumby findings inform combined-disability analysis)
- Special Indemnity Fund v. Simpson, 349 P.2d 635 (1960) (approved joint petition may constitute adjudication of permanent disability where the record discloses evidence of permanent impairment)
- Oklahoma Power Co. v. State Industrial Comm'n, 9 P.2d 443 (1932) (judicial approval of a joint petition has finality and is a form of adjudication not subject to collateral attack after appeal period)
- J.C. Penney Co. v. Crumby, 584 P.2d 1325 (1978) (defines the Crumby finding as a rated assessment of preexisting unrelated impairments and their impact)
- Depuy v. Hoeme, 775 P.2d 1339 (1989) (recognizes various forms of WCC decisions as judicial actions/adjudications)
- Roberts v. Tway Construction Co., 528 P.2d 1389 (1974) (no controlling distinction between a final order and judge-approved joint petition for issues determined in the petition)