Court Opinion

ID: 9878578
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-27 17:26:37.477189+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:59:26.512970
License: Public Domain

Wyrick, J., concurring in the judgment: ¶ 1 I agree with the Court that Ms. Wiggins lacks the “previous adjudication of disability” necessary to qualify her as a “physi-caliy impaired person” under 85 O.S.2011 402(A)(4). As such, I also agree with the Court’s decision to vacate the award in this case because, without a “physically impaired person” before it, the Workers’ Compensation Court was without jurisdiction to enter such an award against the MITF. ¶2 I disagree, however, with the Court’s interpretation of section 402(A)(4). In my view, a claimant cannot qualify as a “physically impaired person” under section 402(A)(4) unless that claimant can present a formal adjudication of disability that (1) predates the most recent workrrelated injury and (2) found disability to a part of the body “deemed to have been injured” in the most recent work-related injury. See Multiple Injury Trust Fund v. Mackey, 2017 OK 75, ¶ 8, 406 P.3d 564 (Wyrick, J., dissenting). ¶ 3' For these' reasons,' I concur in the judgment only. '