Special Indemnity Fund v. Estill
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
1Opinion of the Court
ALMA WILSON, Justice:
¶ 1 The question presented on certiorari is whether the evidence was sufficient to prove that the claimant was a physically impaired person by an obvious and apparent loss of use of a major member of the body pursuant to 85 O.S.1991, § 171. We answer in the affirmative. We vacate the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals and affirm the Workers’ Compensation Court award against the Special Indemnity Fund.
¶ 2 Richard S. Estill, respondent (Estill), was eight years old in 1951 when he was diagnosed with polio. Five years later, when Estill was thirteen years of age, his legs…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Parks v. Norman Municipal HospitalSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1984
- Special Indemnity Fund v. FigginsSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1992
- Special Indemnity Fund v. ArcherSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1993
- Special Indemnity Fund v. ChoateSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1993
- Special Indemnity Fund v. HuntSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1948
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- BALL v. MULTIPLE INJURY TRUST FUNDSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2015
- Cozart v. Special Indemnity FundCourt of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · 1998
- Special Indemnity Fund v. PaytonCourt of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · 1998
- BALL v. MULTIPLE INJURY TRUST FUNDSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2015
- BALL v. MULTIPLE INJURY TRUST FUNDSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2015
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.