No. 13649
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
1977
VICTOR FERMO,
Claimant and Respondent,
-vs-
SUPERLINE PRODUCTS, Employer,
and
AETNA CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY,
Defendant and Appellant.
Appeal from: Workers' Compensation Court
Honorable William E. Hunt, Judge presiding.
Counsel of Record:
For Appellant:
Anderson, Symmes, Forbes, Peete and Brown,
Billings, Montana
Richard F. Cebull argued, Billings, Montana
For Respondent:
Hoyt and Bottomly, Great Falls, Montana
John C. Hoyt argued, Great Falls, Montana
Submitted: September 20, 1977
Decided :
JAN 1 0 1B
9
M r . J u s t i c e Gene B . Daly delivered t h e Opinion of t h e Court:
O March 28, 1975, claimant f i l e d a claim f o r compensation
n
with t h e Montana Division of Workers' Compensation, a s a r e s u l t
of an i n j u r y sustained by claimant i n t h e course and scope of
h i s employment on February 26, 1975. Claimant received temporary
t o t a l d i s a b i l i t y b e n e f i t s f o r t h e period February 28, 1975
through August 24, 1975, approximately when he returned t o h i s work.
I n s u r e r o f f e r e d claimant $1,452 a s a compromise s e t t l e m e n t
f o r c l a i m a n t ' s impairment. O n July 28, 1976, claimant f i l e d a
p e t i t i o n f o r hearing with t h e Workers' Compensation Court. The
matter came f o r t r i a l before t h e Workers' Compensation Court
on August 25, 1976. The Court issued f i n d i n g s of f a c t and conclu-
s i o n s of law holding claimant e n t i t l e d t o a permanent p a r t i a l
d i s a b i l i t y award of 125 weeks a t c l a i m a n t ' s permanent p a r t i a l
d i s a b i l i t y r a t e of $60 per week, which equals t h e sum of $7,500.
The Workers' Compensation Court ordered $7,500 t o be paid t o
claimant i n a lump sum. The order was stayed, pending t h e
i n s u r e r ' s appeal t o t h i s Court.
The s o l e i s s u e on appeal i s whether o r n o t t h e r e i s sub-
s t a n t i a l evidence t o support t h e workers' Compensation Court's
f i n d i n g s t h a t claimant i s e n t i t l e d t o a permanent p a r t i a l d i s -
a b i l i t y award of $7,500.
Claimant's occupation r e q u i r e s t h e loading and unloading
of t r u c k s , e i t h e r by use of a f o r k l i f t o r manual l a b o r , and t h e
occasional d r i v i n g of a semi-truck. O February 26, 1975,
n
claimant sustained an i n j u r y t o h i s l e f t w r i s t when a hack o r
bundle of b r i c k f e l l on h i s l e f t arm. The i n j u r y aggravated
a p r e e x i s t i n g i n j u r y , claimant having f r a c t u r e d h i s n a v i c u l a r bone
some 20 years p r i o r t o t h e i n s t a n t i n j u r y . A s a r e s u l t of t h e
r e c e n t w r i s t i n j u r y , claimant underwent a s u r g i c a l procedure
known a s a r a d i a l styloidectomy i n A p r i l 1975. Claimant s t i l l
complains of symptoms which, examining physicians a g r e e , might
be remedied only by a w r i s t fusion.
On December 30, 1975, a Great F a l l s orthopedic surgeon and
c l a i m a n t ' s t r e a t i n g physician, evaluated c l a i m a n t ' s c o n d i t i o n
.and r a t e d h i s d i s a b i l i t y :
"He ( s i c ) permanent d i s a b i l i t y i s approximately
25% d i s a b i l i t y of t h e whole man."
On January 22, 1976, a f t e r c o n s u l t a t i o n with t h e i n s u r e r ,
t h e t r e a t i n g orthopedic surgeon s e n t a l e t t e r t o i n s u r e r s t a t i n g :
"The permanent p a r t i a l impairment of t h i s man's l e f t
w r i s t amounts t o 11%. This - i s based on l o s s of motion.
* * *"
This e v a l u a t i o n was based on t h e American Medical A s s o c i a t i o n ' s
Guide t o t h e Evaluation of Physical Impairment.
O March 18, 1976, claimant was examined by a second physician
n
a t t h e request of t h e i n s u r e r , but no d i s a b i l i t y r a t i n g by t h i s
second doctor i s found i n t h e record.
Based upon t h e examining p h y s i c i a n ' s r a t i n g s of c l a i m a n t ' s
d i s a b i l i t y , c l a i m a n t ' s counsel concluded t h e following p o t e n t i a l
recoveries were a v a i l a b l e t o claimant and t h e s e options were
presented t o t h e Workers' Compensation Court i n h i s b r i e f :
Using t h e doc t o r ' s r a t i n g s a t claimant' s weekly permanent
p a r t i a l r a t e of $60 t h e following computations were presented:
" 1 of
1 % the upper extremity equal 30.8 weeks o r $1,848.00
" 7% of the whole man equal 35 weeks o r $2,100.00
"25% of the upper extremity equals 70 weeks o r $4,200.00
"25% of the whole man equal 125 weeks o r $7,500.00."
The b a s i c d i s p u t e i s t h e i n s u r e r ' s contention t h a t claimant
i s n o t e n t i t l e d t o a d i s a b i l i t y r a t i n g a s t o t h e "whole man" when
c l a i m a n t ' s d i s a b i l i t y i s l i m i t e d t o t h e w r i s t , one extremity.
Thus, t h e i s s u e becomes whether a claimant who s u s t a i n s an
i n d u s t r i a l i n j u r y t o an extremity of t h e body, i s l i m i t e d i n
h i s claim f o r compensation f o r permanent p a r t i a l d i s a b i l i t y
b e n e f i t s t o t h e s p e c i f i e d i n j u r y s t a t u t e , s e c t i o n 92-709, R.C.M.
1947, o r whether a claimant i s a l s o e n t i t l e d t o permanent
p a r t i a l d i s a b i l i t y b e n e f i t s under s e c t i o n 92-703.1, R.C.M. 1947,
which provides f o r t h e payment of compensation f o r i n j u r y t o any
member of t h e body, where t h e i n j u r y causes p a r t i a l d i s a b i l i t y .
I n t h e i n s t a n t case i t i s argued by t h e i n s u r e r t h a t t h e
claimant cannot c o l l e c t under s e c t i o n 92-703.1 because he has
s u f f e r e d no l o s s i n earning c a p a c i t y and t h e record shows he i s
earning more money a f t e r t h e i n j u r y , than before. The record
a l s o c l e a r l y shows t h e doctor gave him a 25 percent r a t i n g of
d i s a b i l i t y based on the whole man. This Court on t h e s e f a c t s
holds t h a t an award c a l c u l a t e d s o l e l y i n terms of a percentage
d i s a b i l i t y f i g u r e a p p l i e d t o previous earnings w i l l s t a n d ,
r e g a r d l e s s of whether a c t u a l post i n j u r y earnings a r e g r e a t e r
than before t h e i n j u r y . This w i l l n o t b a r a recovery under
s e c t i o n 92-703.1, a s long a s o t h e r evidence s u f f i c i e n t l y e s t a b -
l i s h i n g t h e degree of d i s a b i l i t y appears i n t h e record.
Actual post i n j u r y earnings a r e but one item of evidence t o
be considered i n t h e d e t e r m i r a t i o n of f u t u r e earning c a p a c i t y .
This Court i n Shaffer v. Midland Empire Packing Co., (1953),
213,
127 Mont. 2111 259 P.2d 340, 342, s e t out t h e t e s t f o r l o s s of
earning c a p a c i t y :
"The t e s t *** i s not whether t h e r e has been a
l o s s of earnings o r income caused by t h e i n j u r y ,
b u t r a t h e r has t h e r e been a l o s s of earning capa-
c i t y - - a l o s s of a b i l i t y t o earn i n t h e open l a b o r
market ."
I n Midland-Ross Corporation v. I n d u s t r i a l Commission, (1971),
107 Ariz. 311, 486 P.2d 793, t h e c o u r t h e l d t h a t evidence t h a t
claimant was required t o work i n pain r e b u t t e d the presumption
of no l o s s of earning c a p a c i t y r a i s e d by c l a i m a n t ' s r e t u r n t o
h i s former employment. The r a t i o n a l e of t h e Arizona c a s e extends
t o nonschedule permanent p a r t i a l i n j u r i e s t h e schedule-injury
presumption t h a t a d e f i n i t e physical impairment w i l l probably
sooner o r l a t e r have an adverse e f f e c t on earning c a p a c i t y .
I t may be years before t h e e f f e c t i s f e l t . But a man
with a s t i f f e n e d arm o r damaged back o r badly weakened eye w i l l
presumably have a harder time doing h i s work w e l l and meeting
t h e competition of young and healthy men. When a man stands
b e f o r e t h e Workers' Compensation Court with proven permanent
physical i n j u r i e s , f o r which t h e exclusive remedy c l a u s e has
abolished a l l p o s s i b i l i t y of common-law damages, i t i s n o t
j u s t i f i a b l e t o t e l l him he has undergone no impairment of
earning c a p a c i t y , s o l e l y on t h e s t r e n g t h of c u r r e n t pay checks.
Usually t h e r e b u t t i n g evidence a t t a c k s t h e post i n j u r y wage
i t s e l f and shows t h a t i t s s i z e i s an u n f a i r c r i t e r i o n of c a p a c i t y .
U n r e l i a b i l i t y of p o s t i n j u r y earnings may be due t o a number of
variables :
1. Increase i n g e n e r a l wage l e v e l s s i n c e t h e a c c i d e n t .
2. Claimant's own maturity o r t r a i n i n g .
3. Longer hours worked by t h e claimant a f t e r t h e a c c i d e n t .
4. Payment of wages d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e t o c a p a c i t y t o work
o u t of sympathy t o claimant.
The u l t i m a t e o b j e c t i v e of t h e d i s a b i l i t y t e s t i s by
discounting t h e above v a r i a b l e s t o determine t h e wage t h a t
would have been paid i n t h e open l a b o r market under normal
employment conditions t o claimant a s i n j u r e d , taking wage l e v e l s ,
hours of work, and c l a i m a n t ' s age and s t a t e of t r a i n i n g a s of
e x a c t l y t h e same period used f o r c a l c u l a t i n g a c t u a l wages earned
before t h e i n j u r y .
Therefore, i t i s uniformily held without regard t o s t a t u t o r y
v a r i a t i o n s i n the phrasing of t h e t e s t , t h a t a f i n d i n g of d i s -
a b i l i t y may stand even i f t h e r e i s evidence of some a c t u a l post
i n j u r y earnings equaling o r exceeding those received before t h e
accident. T r a v e l e r s Insurance Company v . McLellan, (1961),
288 F.2d 250.
I n t h e i n s t a n t case t h e record c l e a r l y shows claimant i s
performing t h e same work a s before and earning more money. How-
ever, it a l s o discloses claimant's pain i s so extreme t h a t a t
times he cannot conduct h i s work with t h e speed and e f f i c i e n c y
he had before t h e a c c i d e n t . I t seems very l i k e l y a w r i s t f u s i o n
w i l l be required t o r e l i e v e t h e pain which w i l l a f f e c t h i s body
f u n c t i o n a s a whole. W note t h a t t h e Workers' Compensation Act
e
has always been l i b e r a l l y construed i n favor of t h e i n j u r e d
workman. s e c t i o n 92-838, R.C.M. 1947; Rumsey v. Cardinal
Petroleum, (1975), 166 Mont. 17, 530 P.2d 433; S t a t e ex r e l .
Romero v. D i s t r i c t Court, (1973), 162 Mont. 358, 513 P.2d 265.
Here, t h e r e seems t o be a l o s s of c a p a c i t y t o perform a s
w e l l a s before t h e i n j u r y , and a l o s s of a b i l i t y t o compete and
earn i n t h e open market. This q u a l i f i e s claimant under t h e
standard t o be applied when determining h i s r i g h t t o be paid
under s e c t i o n 92-703.1 f o r diminished earning c a p a c i t y .
The workers' Compensation award made under s e c t i o n 92-703.1,
-3
R.C.M. 1947, i s affirmed.
Justice // L-
4
We Concur: