MULTIPLE INJURY TRUST FUND v. SUGG, 2015 OK 78

Background

Viola Sugg had a prior adjudicated compensable workplace injury (1989) for which she received a 10% whole‑body award and later a 1993 cervical fusion.
She sustained a subsequent compensable on‑the‑job injury to her right knee on October 21, 2008; the Workers' Compensation Court awarded permanent partial disability to the right knee and made contemporaneous Crumby findings assigning percentages for prior unrelated impairments.
In 2013 Sugg filed a claim against the Multiple Injury Trust Fund (the Fund) seeking permanent total disability (PTD) by combining the 1989 adjudication, the 2008 adjudication, and the Crumby findings.
The trial Workers' Compensation Court found Sugg was a "physically impaired person" at the time of the 2008 injury but denied Fund benefits, concluding the combined impairments did not amount to PTD.
A three‑judge panel and the Court of Civil Appeals reversed, allowing combination of the Crumby findings with adjudicated injuries and awarding PTD from the Fund; the Fund appealed to the Oklahoma Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve: (1) the threshold requirement of being a "physically impaired person" under § 171, and (2) whether Crumby findings of preexisting disability may be combined with adjudicated injuries to establish PTD under § 172(B)(3) for injuries after November 1, 2005.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Sugg)	Defendant's Argument (Fund)	Held
1. Threshold: Must a claimant be a "physically impaired person" under § 171 before seeking Fund benefits?	Sugg relied on her 1989 adjudication to satisfy the threshold and proceed against the Fund.	Fund conceded threshold satisfied here but argued limits on what may be combined thereafter.	Yes. Claimant must be a physically impaired person under § 171 before pursuing Fund relief; here Sugg met that requirement by virtue of the 1989 adjudication.
2. Combinability: May a Crumby finding of preexisting nonwork impairment be combined with adjudicated injuries to establish PTD under § 172(B)(3) for post‑Nov.1, 2005 injuries?	Crumby findings arising in the later award are relevant and combinable with prior adjudications to determine present capacity and thus may be included in PTD analysis.	Relied on Ball and statutory changes to argue limits on combining Crumby findings to create the status of a "physically impaired person"; Fund sought restriction on combinability.	A Crumby finding of preexisting disability may be combined with other impairments when assessing whether a claimant is permanently and totally disabled under § 172(B)(3). However, the claimant must first already be a physically impaired person as defined by statute.
3. Merits: Did Sugg's combined adjudicated injuries and Crumby findings render her permanently and totally disabled?	Sugg argued the synergistic effect of adjudicated injuries, Crumby ratings, surgeries, age, and vocational factors eliminated her capacity for gainful employment.	Fund argued combined impairments did not meet PTD standard and employer liability rules limit exposure.	The Court determined the record supported that Sugg is permanently and totally disabled and therefore entitled to Fund benefits under § 172(B)(3).

Key Cases Cited

Special Indemnity Fund v. Carson, 852 P.2d 157 (Okla. 1993) (addressed jurisdictional requirement whether contemporaneous Crumby finding makes claimant a "physically impaired person").
Standard Testing & Engineering Co. v. Bradshaw, 442 P.2d 337 (Okla. 1968) (PTD focuses on ability to perform substantially gainful occupation, not just percentage formulas).
McClure v. Special Indemnity Fund, 475 P.2d 811 (Okla. 1970) (PTD defined as lack of ability to substantially perform gainful employment without health injury or serious discomfort).
Hammons v. Oklahoma Fixture Co., 64 P.3d 1108 (Okla. 2003) (explains Crumby finding as rated assessment of effect of preexisting unrelated impairments on present capacity).
J.C. Penney Co. v. Crumby, 584 P.2d 1325 (Okla. 1978) (origin of the "Crumby" framework for assessing preexisting impairments).
Holley v. Ace Am. Ins. Co., 313 P.3d 917 (Okla. 2013) (statutory construction reviewed de novo; cited for standard of review).