MULTIPLE INJURY TRUST FUND v. SUGG
2015 OK 78
| Okla. | 2015Background
- Claimant Viola Sugg had an adjudicated compensable work injury in 1989 (neck and left knee) and received a 10% whole-body award, making her a "physically impaired person" under 85 O.S. § 171.
- She sustained a subsequent compensable right knee injury on October 21, 2008; the WC court awarded permanent partial disability for that injury and made "Crumby" findings of preexisting impairments.
- Sugg filed a claim against the Multiple Injury Trust Fund (the Fund) seeking permanent total disability (PTD) benefits based on the combination of her prior adjudicated disability, the Crumby findings, and the 2008 injury.
- The Workers' Compensation Court denied Fund benefits, finding the combined injuries did not constitute PTD; a three-judge panel reversed, concluding Sugg was PTD if Crumby findings were combinable.
- The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the panel; the Oklahoma Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve whether a preexisting adjudication and Crumby findings may be combined under the post‑2005 statutory scheme.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a claimant must be a "physically impaired person" before seeking Fund benefits | Sugg: She was a physically impaired person due to her 1989 adjudication and thus may seek Fund relief | Fund: A claimant must satisfy statutory definition; Crumby findings alone (if not prior adjudication) cannot create that status | Held: A claimant must be a physically impaired person as defined in §171 before Fund relief; Sugg met this requirement by virtue of her 1989 adjudication |
| Whether Crumby findings made contemporaneously with a subsequent adjudication can be used to create "physically impaired" status | Sugg: Crumby findings and adjudicated injuries can be combined to establish physical impairment | Fund: Post‑2005 amendments removed preexisting disability from §171; contemporaneous Crumby findings cannot alone create the status (per Ball) | Held: Contemporaneous Crumby findings cannot be used to create the status (per Ball), but where a claimant already has a prior adjudication, Crumby findings are relevant to PTD determination |
| For subsequent injuries after Nov. 1, 2005, what is the dispositive inquiry for Fund liability | Sugg: Whether combined disabilities render claimant permanently and totally disabled | Fund: The statute limits employer liability and requires evaluation whether combined disabilities reach PTD standard | Held: Under §172(B)(3), the dispositive question is whether the combination renders the employee permanently and totally disabled; if so, Fund pays the PTD portion |
| Whether Crumby findings may be combined with adjudicated and subsequent injuries to determine PTD | Sugg: Yes; Crumby findings reflect prior impairment's effect and may be combined | Fund: Crumby findings are limited and cannot expand Fund liability beyond statute | Held: Yes; a Crumby-rated assessment of preexisting impairments may be combined with other impairments in determining PTD under §172(B)(3) |
Key Cases Cited
- Special Indem. Fund v. Carson, 852 P.2d 157 (Okla. 1993) (construed §171 and addressed whether contemporaneous Crumby findings create physically impaired status)
- J.C. Penney Co. v. Crumby, 584 P.2d 1325 (Okla. 1978) (established concept of "Crumby" findings as rated assessment of preexisting impairments)
- Hammons v. Okla. Fixture Co., 64 P.3d 1108 (Okla. 2003) (explained Crumby finding as rated assessment of the effect of preexisting conditions on current capacity)
- Standard Testing & Eng. Co. v. Bradshaw, 442 P.2d 337 (Okla. 1968) (PTD depends largely on ability to perform gainful occupation beyond percentage formulas)
- McClure v. Special Indem. Fund, 475 P.2d 811 (Okla. 1970) (PTD defined as lack of ability to substantially perform gainful employment)
- Holley v. Ace Am. Ins. Co., 313 P.3d 917 (Okla. 2013) (statutory construction reviewed de novo)