Opinion
No. 40153.
April 23, 1956.
1. Workmen's Compensation — total and permanent disability — allowance — covered minor disabilities resulting from same accident.
In proceeding for compensation for permanent partial disability because of claimant's loss of use of two fingers of his left hand in addition to amount of lump sum settlement for total permanent disability caused by collapse of his left lung when punctured by a physician in performing a nerve block deemed necessary because of infection developing after suturing of wounds to such fingers, Court held that claimant's entire disability having resulted from a single accident, allowance of permanent total disability compensation was all inclusive and covered all minor disabilities resulting from accident, so as to preclude recovery of additional compensation.
Headnote as approved by Hall, J.
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Warren County; R.B. ANDERSON, Judge.
Ramsey Ramsey, Vicksburg, for appellants.
I. The surviving heirs of a deceased compensation claimant have no right entitling them to future and unaccrued compensation, but such heirs are entitled to proceed for and to receive accrued and unpaid installments of compensation due a deceased claimant at his death.
A. The permanent partial scheduled benefit compensation herein sought is accrued and unpaid compensation. Sec. 6998-09(c), Code 1942; Chap. 354 Sec. 8(c), Laws 1948; 58 Am. Jur., Workmen's Compensation, Sec. 320.
B. The appellants are the persons lawfully entitled to any accrued and unpaid compensation which shall be found to have been due the claimant below. M.T. Reed Constr. Co. v. Martin, 215 Miss. 472, 63 So.2d 528; Bradner v. Myers Funeral Home, 330 Mich. 392, 47 N.W.2d 658; Kozielec v. Mack Mfg. Corp., 29 N.J. Super. 272, 102 A.2d 404.
II. Ordinarily, the reviewing Court has no authority to reverse the findings of fact of the Workmen's Compensation Commission, or its Attorney-Referees, and the findings of fact of the Commission have the force and effect of judicial decrees, but even as with judicial decrees the reviewing Court is not only authorized, but exists largely for the purpose of correcting, modifying and reversing a finding of fact where the evidence is undisputed to the contrary, or where the uncontradicted and overwhelming weight of the testimony is contrary to the finding or there is an obvious oversight, and an obvious error in a minor but probative detail such as the date of the injury, or where a finding purporting to be a fact amounts to the statement of a conclusion of law.
A. The error made in finding No. 2 of the Commission's finding of fact and the Commission's order dated May 6, 1955, stating that the date of the injury received by claimant below was March 3, 1954, instead of March 3, 1953, is so obvious from a casual reading of the record of both hearings held in the case at bar that neither the quoting of the record nor the citing of the authority is warranted to rectify it, but since the date is essential and probative appellants have felt it necessary to call the error to the attention of the Court, for correction.
B. The records of both hearings in the case at bar clearly show that the claimant below sustained a permanent as well as a total loss of use of his second and third fingers, and finding No. 2 of the May 6, 1955, Commission order should have read "That claimant has lost the permanent total use of his second and third fingers, etc." and the Court should have corrected said finding in accordance with the undisputed testimony that the loss was permanent as well as total. Sones v. Southern Lbr. Co., 215 Miss. 148, 60 So.2d 582.
C. Finding No. 3 of the findings of fact of the Commission's order dated May 6, 1955, states a conclusion of law, viz., "That claimant is not entitled to further compensation because of said injury since he has been paid maximum benefits for permanent total disability to the body as a whole." The stating of a conclusion of law is not within the fact-finding province of the Commission, and this Court is not bound to follow such findings simply because it is required to respect the finding of fact of the Attorney-Referee and the Commission where the evidence substantiates the facts as found by the Commission. Sones v. Southern Lbr. Co., supra.
D. The records of both hearings in this cause show by the uncontradicted and overwhelming weight of the evidence that the claimant was permanently and totally disabled as a result of his chest and lung condition alone and that the permanent loss of use of the claimant's fingers was entirely disconnected with and ineffectual as to his permanent total status, and the Commission should have found that as a matter of fact two different and separate injuries and classes of disability existed. Williams Bros. Co. v. McIntosh, 226 Miss. 553, 84 So.2d 692.
III. Where there is a permanent total loss of use of a scheduled member, such a loss of use constitutes a total loss of the member under Section 6998-09(c-18), Code of 1942, and if such a loss is proven and it is also proven that such loss does not constitute any impairment of wage-earning capacity of the claimant and was not considered as a disability or impairment of wage-earning capacity when the claimant was awarded maximum permanent total compensation by a previous hearing, permanent partial schedule benefits for loss of the member must be paid in addition to permanent total compensation.
IV. Where in an action before the Commission brought for determination of permanent total compensation for an injury to his fingers which caused infection which spread to the lung which resulted in complications which rendered claimant permanently and totally disabled and where the overwhelming and uncontradicted evidence showed that the permanent total compensation award was predicated on and can be sustained on the basis of the lung and chest disability alone and that the member loss was ineffectual as far as the chest injuries were concerned, permanent partial compensation for the loss of the second and third fingers of the hand will not be denied simply because of the previous award, and permanent partial compensation shall be paid in accordance with the statute. The Legislature has not placed any overall maximum limit of compensation in the Workmen's Compensation Statute and the different classes of compensation provided for therein such as temporary total, permanent partial and permanent total which are required by the statute to be paid consecutively and not concurrently, should be separately, cumulatively and consecutively paid, each class within its own respective statutory weekly and maximum benefit limits, when applicable and the Court will interpret and enforce the Act as written. The Workmen's Compensation Act is remedial in nature and should be interpreted liberally and in favor of the injured workman or his dependents, and such was the legislative intent in the enactment of the statute.
A. A permanent total loss of use of a member under Section 6998-09 (c-18), Code of 1942, as amended, constitutes a loss of the member and a claim for such loss should be paid if such a loss of use is proven regardless of whether such loss constitutes disability. McKenzie v. Gulf Hills Hotel, 221 Miss. 723, 74 So.2d 830.
B. Each subparagraph of Section 6998-09, Code of 1942, is separate and distinct from each of the others, and the provisions therein made for permanent total compensation, Subsection (a) is separate and distinct from provisions made for permanent partial compensation or Subsection (c) and either and both of said sections is separate and distinct from Section (b) entitled "Temporary Total Disability" and each provision of said Section 6998-09 should be so construed and awards made separately, cumulatively and independently of each of the other sections throughout Section 6998-09 and throughout the entire Compensation Act wherein temporary partial compensation and medical payments are also separately provided for and that the compensation provided in each separate paragraph should be separately, cumulatively and consecutively paid, where such payments apply to the facts. Modern Laundry v. Williams, 224 Miss. 174, 79 So.2d 829; J.F. Crowe Well Servicing Contractor v. Fielder, 224 Miss. 353, 80 So.2d 29; Reyer v. Pearl River Tung Co., 219 Miss. 211, 68 So.2d 442.
C. The total loss of use of the two fingers would not affect claimant's ability as a carpenter.
D. The claimant below was totally and permanently disabled from performing the duties of his regular occupation solely as the result of his chest and lung condition and irrespective of any loss of the fingers. Sec. 6998-09(c-9, 10), Code 1942.
E. It has been consistently held that the Act should be given a liberal interpretation, and be construed in favor of the injured workman, and that it should be interpreted as written. Lucedale Veneer Co. v. Rogers, 211 Miss. 613, 48 So.2d 148; Deemer Lbr. Co. v. Hamilton, 211 Miss. 673, 52 So.2d 634; Brookhaven Steam Laundry v. Watts, 214 Miss. 569, 59 So.2d 294; Joe Ready's Shell Station Cafe v. Ready, 218 Miss. 80, 65 So.2d 268; McKenzie v. Gulf Hills Hotel, supra; Olmstead v. Lamphier, 93 Conn. 20, 104 A. 488, 7 A.L.R. 542; Fredenberg v. Empire United R. Co., 154 N.Y.S. 351, 168 App. Div. 618; Vol. II, Larson's Workmen's Comp. Law, Secs. 57.10, 59.42.
Dent, Ward Martin, Vicksburg, for appellees.
I. Mr. Baggett sustained one injury for which full compensation has been paid.
II. The opinion of the Attorney-Referee of May 24, 1954, and its affirmance by the Compensation Commission by its order of August 5, 1954, which was not appealed from, was a complete adjudication of this case. Sec. 6998-09, Code 1942.
III. The injury to the fingers spread to other parts of the body producing a greater disability (permanent and total) for which an award was made and paid in full. Armstrong Cork Co. v. Sheppard, 222 Miss. 359, 76 So.2d 255; Bernier v. Greenville Mills, 41 A.2d 241; Consolidated Underwriters v. Lanley (Tex.), 170 S.W.2d 463; Gallagher v. Lane (Tenn.), 229 S.W. 347; Guillot v. Weaver Bros. (La.), 31 So.2d 278; Lucedale Veneer Co. v. Keel, 223 Miss. 821, 79 So.2d 233; McKenzie v. Gulf Hills Hotel, 221 Miss. 723, 74 So.2d 830; Nowlin v. Mississippi Chemical Co., 219 Miss. 873, 70 So.2d 49; M.T. Reed Constr. Co. v. Martin, 215 Miss. 472, 61 So.2d 300; Texas Employers v. Polk (Tex.), 269 S.W.2d 582; Texas Employers v. Trapp (Tex.), 258 S.W.2d 112; 58 Am. Jur., Sec. 293 p. 786; Anno. 156 A.L.R. 1345.
On March 3, 1953, Thomas Henry Baggett, while in the employ of "M" System Trailer Company, was pushing a board through a circular saw when he accidently cut the second and third fingers of his left hand. He was sent to a doctor and the wounds were sutured. An infection developed and finally the attending physician deemed it necessary to perform a nerve block. While doing this Mr. Baggett's left lung was punctured and was caused to collapse and, as a result, he became totally and permanently disabled. A claim for compensation was filed and was allowed by the attorney-referee. On appeal to the full Commission the award of the attorney-referee was affirmed. No further appeal was taken and a lump sum settlement was made with Mr. Baggett for the allowance of total and permanent disability.
In due course after the settlement was effected, Mr. Baggett filed an additional claim for fifty weeks permanent partial disability for the loss of the use of the second and third fingers. On the hearing it was shown that these fingers are stiff and that his hand would be in better condition for the resumption of his occupation as a capenter, if the two fingers were amputated, though he was still, by reason of his general physical condition, unable to resume his occupation. The attorney-referee disallowed the second claim, and his action was affirmed by the Commission and also by the circuit court.
While the matter was pending Mr. Baggett died from causes which have no connection with his injury, and the appeal is prosecuted here by his widow and dependent son.
The appellants contend that after having drawn benefits for total and permanent disability in the maximum amount, they are also entitled to permanent partial disability for the loss of the use of the two fingers. Stated differently, the appellants contend that the benefits under our compensation law should be applied consecutively. (Hn 1) In certain instances, which are not at all applicable here, we have so held, but in this case we are of the opinion that since the entire disability in this case stems from and originated as the result of a single accident, the allowance of total and permanent disability is all inclusive and covers all minor disabilities which may have resulted from the accident. The case of Armstrong Cork Co. v. Sheppard, 222 Miss. 359, 76 So.2d 225, supports our position and the judgment appealed from will be affirmed.
Affirmed.
McGehee, C.J., Kyle, Holmes and Gillespie, JJ., concur.