Title: Multiple Injury Fund v. McCauley
Citation: 2015 OK 84
Docket Number: 
State: Oklahoma
Issuer: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Date: December 15, 2015

Multiple Injury Fund v. McCauley Annotate this Case Justia Opinion Summary Claimant John McCauley sought permanent total disability benefits from the Multiple Injury Trust Fund for three separately adjudicated cumulative trauma injuries. The Workers' Compensation Court found Claimant was a physically impaired person and awarded him permanent total disability benefits against the Fund. The Fund appealed, and the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed but for different reasons. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that a person who has a disability resulting from separately adjudicated injuries arising at the same time was a physically impaired person by statutory definition. The Court also concluded that the date of last exposure to the separately adjudicated but simultaneously occurring cumulative trauma injuries was the date to be used in fixing the Fund's liability. Read more Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Oklahoma Supreme Court? Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More › You already receive new opinion summaries from Oklahoma Supreme Court. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here . MULTIPLE INJURY TRUST FUND v. MCCAULEY 2015 OK 84 Case Number: 112785 Decided: 12/15/2015 THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA NOTICE: THIS OPINION HAS NOT BEEN RELEASED FOR PUBLICATION. UNTIL RELEASED, IT IS SUBJECT TO REVISION OR WITHDRAWAL. MULTIPLE INJURY TRUST FUND, Petitioner, v. JOHN R. MCCAULEY and THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION COURT, Respondents. CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS, DIVISION IV, ON APPEAL FROM THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION COURT ¶0 Claimant John McCauley sought permanent total disability benefits from the Multiple Injury Trust Fund for three separately adjudicated cumulative trauma injuries with dates of last exposure on December 2, 2011. The Workers' Compensation Court found Claimant was a physically impaired person and awarded him permanent total disability benefits against the Fund. The Fund appealed, and the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed but for different reasons. Upon review, we hold that a person who has a disability resulting from separately adjudicated injuries arising at the same time is a physically impaired person by statutory definition. We also conclude that the date of last exposure to the separately adjudicated but simultaneously occurring cumulative trauma injuries is the date to be used in fixing the Fund's liability. COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OPINION IS VACATED; APRIL 8, 2014 ORDER OF THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION COURT AFFIRMED Brandy L. Inman, Latham, Wagner, Steele, & Lehman, P.C., Tulsa, Oklahoma, for the Petitioner. John C. Forbes, Tom Leonard, Forbes & Forbes, P.C., Midwest City, Oklahoma, for the Respondents. GURICH, J. ¶1 In October of 2011, Claimant filed three separate claims against his employer Mercruiser. The first claim, Case No. 2011-11747-R, alleged a cumulative trauma injury to Claimant's neck, back, and spine with the date of first awareness in 2006. The second claim, Case No. 2011-11748-Y, alleged a cumulative trauma injury to Claimant's hands, arms, and shoulders with the date of first awareness in 1990. The third claim, Case No. 2011-11749-A, alleged a cumulative trauma injury to Claimant's knees with the date of first awareness in 1990. Claimant's employer closed the plant where Claimant worked in December of 2011, and Claimant's date of last exposure for all three cumulative trauma injuries was December 2, 2011. ¶2 On March 9, 2012, the Workers' Compensation Court ordered the three cases be "consolidated for trial purposes with separate Orders to issue."1 In May of 2013, Claimant and employer Mercruiser settled the cases by three separate compromise settlements.2 Claimant then filed a Form 3F, seeking permanent total disability benefits from the Fund. Claimant filed his Form 3F under Case No. 2011-11747-R, which had a date of first awareness in 2006. He listed the other two cases, with dates of first awareness in 1990, as "prior" cases. On April 8, 2014, the Workers' Compensation Court entered an order awarding permanent total disability benefits against the Fund. The court found that Claimant was a physically impaired person by reason of the two cases with dates of first awareness in 1990. However, the trial court also found: THAT the compromise settlement filed with the Court on May 23, 2013, lists a date of awareness in 2006 as agreed to by the parties involved in the compromise settlement with a permanent partial disability rate of compensation of $289.00. Based upon the date of awareness, any permanent total disability based upon a combination of disabilities would be versus the Multiple Injury Trust Fund not the last employer. The Section 171 in effect in 2006 applies. That section defines physically impaired person to include: '.any disability resulting from separately adjudicated injuries and adjudicated occupational diseases even though arising at the same time.' Respondent argues claimant's 3 claims cannot be combined due to their adjudication at the same time. However, the last sentence of § 171 appears to allow such as long as the cases were separately adjudicated. Herein, there were 3 claims, all settled at the same time but with separate adjudications. Therefore, that defense will be DENIED.3 The Fund appealed, and the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed, relying on its previous decision in Multiple Injury Trust Fund v. Perry, Case No. 111,759 (Apr. 30, 2014), which we overruled in our recent decision in Ball v. Multiple Injury Trust Fund, 2015 OK 64, ___P.3d___. The Fund petitioned for certiorari review, and we granted review on October 5, 2015. Standard of Review ¶3 The issue in this case is an issue of statutory interpretation. "Statutory construction presents a question of law and lower court rulings in this regard are reviewed de novo." Holley v. Ace Am. Ins. Co., 2013 OK 88, ¶ 5, 313 P.3d 917, 920. Analysis ¶4 "[A]n employee must be a physically impaired person as defined by the applicable statute before he or she can seek benefits from the Fund." Ball, 2015 OK 64, ¶ 17, ___P.3d___. In 1986, the Legislature amended Section 171 of Title 85 to include in the definition of a physically impaired person a person who has any disability resulting from "separately adjudicated injuries and adjudicated occupational diseases even though arising at the same time."4 Although this language has remained in the statute since that time,5 this Court has yet to directly address the meaning of this provision.6 ¶5 Upon consideration, we first note that the original purpose of the Fund was to encourage employment of previously impaired workers and to "protect employers from the responsibility to compensate a physically impaired person for disability resulting from the combination of the previous impairment and the subsequent impairment caused by an on-the-job injury." Multiple Injury Trust Fund v. Wade, 2008 OK 15, ¶ 13, 180 P.3d 1205 , 1209. However, under the statutory language at issue, if a disability results from separately adjudicated injuries "arising at the same time," then there is no preexisting or subsequent injury for the simple reason that the injuries arise at the same time. Nevertheless, the Legislature has indicated that a person who has any disability resulting from "separately adjudicated injuries and adjudicated occupational diseases even though arising at the same time" is a physically impaired person by statutory definition. Inclusion of this language also indicates legislative intent to protect employers from having to pay disability benefits to a worker who, while working for the employer over a period of time, suffers multiple cumulative trauma injuries and seeks to have those injuries adjudicated at the end of his or her tenure with the employer.7 ¶6 But under these circumstances, the general rule is inapplicable because, again, there is no subsequent injury to trigger the Fund's liability.8 For this reason, we conclude that the date of last exposure to the separately adjudicated but simultaneously occurring cumulative trauma injuries is the date to be used in fixing the Fund's liability. In the case before us, the evidence reveals the date of last exposure for all three cumulative trauma injuries was December 2, 2011.9 Thus, the applicable statutes in this case are 85 O.S. 2011 §§ 402-406. Although the trial court erroneously decided this case under 85 O.S. Supp. 2005 § 171, the statutory language at issue is the same in both the 2005 and 2011 versions of the statute. As such, we affirm the April 8, 2014 order of the Workers' Compensation Court. COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OPINION IS VACATED; APRIL 8, 2014 ORDER OF THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION COURT AFFIRMED ¶7 ALL JUSTICES CONCUR FOOT