Multiple Injury Trust Fund v. Coburn, 386 P.3d 628

The MITF funds and claimants’ lawyers dispute which statute governs attorney’s fees in these pre-2014 claims.
The four review proceedings are treated as companion cases, with a single appellate opinion addressing all four.
The issue centers on whether 85 O.S.Supp.2005 § 172(H) or § 30(D) controls the attorney’s fee in MITF cases.
Pre-2014 law fixes substantive rights at injury and governs review rights, but the statute governing fees is disputed.
The WCC of Existing Claims had issued final fee orders directing periodic payments, which the Fund later challenged after claimants’ deaths.
The court concludes the specific fee statute (§ 172(H)) governs, and the WCC has jurisdiction to interpret its prior orders against the Fund.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Which statute controls attorney’s fees against the MITF?	§ 172(H) governs fees against the Fund.	§ 30(D) governs fees against the Fund.	§ 172(H) controls; specific statute prevails over general.
Does the WCC of Existing Claims have jurisdiction to review and interpret prior fee orders?	Timely petitions for review under pre-2014 law permit review by this Court; WCC may interpret prior orders.	Jurisdiction is limited or misaligned with post-2014 framework.	Court has jurisdiction and WCC may determine whether payments conformed to prior orders.
Is 85 O.S.Supp.2005 § 172(H) a valid, non-unconstitutional special law?	Section 172(H) creates a statutory incentive and is constitutional.	Section 172(H) is an unconstitutional special law.	Not unconstitutional; § 172(H) valid as a special law.
Do the fee awards vesting and periodic payment structure defeat or abate upon claimant death?	The fee is vested and does not abate; continuing payments and interest are due.	Death may affect the mechanics of payment.	Fees vest and are not reduced by death; periodic payments with interest continue as ordered.

Carlock v. Workers’ Compensation Commission, 324 P.3d 408 (Okla. 2014) (pre-2014 review rights via three-judge panel and Court; consistent timing of rights)
Batt v. Special Indemnity Fund, 865 P.2d 1244 (Okla. 1993) (attorney’s fee framework and vesting; death context)
Hix v. White Swan Food Services, 930 P.2d 208 (Okla. 1996) (death does not reduce value of earned attorney’s fee)
Taylor v. Special Indemnity Fund, 804 P.2d 431 (Okla. 1990) (distinction between § 30 and § 172; fees for Special Indemnity Fund)
Dean v. Multiple Injury Trust Fund, 145 P.3d 1105 (Okla. 2006) (MITF special-law analysis; enforcement mechanics for Fund orders)