Case ID: ohio-st-3d_74/html/0344-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Francis E. Sweeney, Sr., J. Wright, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The State ex rel. Danis Industries Corporation, Appellant, v. Betzner et al., Appellees.
    [Cite as State ex rel. Danis Industries Corp. v. Betzner (1996), 74 Ohio St.3d 344.]
    (No. 94-974
    Submitted October 10, 1995
    Decided January 17, 1996.)
    
      
      Chemesky, Heymcm & Kress, Brad A. Chalker and Karen R. Adams, for appellant.
    
      Lee M. Smith & Associates and Elizabeth P. Weeden, for appellee Timothy J. Betzner.
    
      Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Gerald H. Waterman, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee Industrial Commission of Ohio.
   Francis E. Sweeney, Sr., J.

At issue in this case is whether forty percent of the award to claimant was part of the total award for permanent partial disability, as determined by the Industrial Commission, or was an award for facial and head disfigurement, as appellant contends. Since the Industrial Commission’s decision is supported by some evidence in the record, we reject appellant’s argument that claimant was compensated for facial and head disfigurement and affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.

The computation of claimant’s award of fifty percent permanent partial disability is supported by three of the four medical reports contained in the record. Nevertheless, appellant challenges that portion of the award (forty percent) which was characterized in some of the medical reports as a “disfigurement impairment.” Appellant presumes that since the term “disfigurement impairment” was used, the claimant was, in essence, being compensated pursuant to R.C. 4123.57(B) for serious facial or head disfigurement.

The evidence in the record fails to support appellant’s position. In fact, the disfigurement sustained by the claimant extends beyond his face and head region and is estimated to cover forty percent of his body. Thus, the medical reports that refer to “disfigurement” do not simply focus on disfigurement to claimant’s face and head but instead recognize more extensive scarring to his whole body as well as the physical limitations which result from the scarring and skin contractures. For instance, Dr. Conte notes that claimant has scarring on the right side of his body with contraction and limitation of movement in his right arm and that claimant will need ongoing therapy to prevent joint contractures and possible future release surgeries. Likewise, Dr. Clarence J. Louis, a commission specialist, notes that claimant has generalized scarring of his body and recommends ongoing therapy to prevent contractures.

We do not believe that the Industrial Commission abused its discretion in granting claimant a fifty percent permanent disability award. The claimant was not merely compensated for facial or head disfigurement. As the court of appeals referee notes, “the permanent partial disability award was not made for head disfigurement and scarring per se but rather was awarded to compensate for the physical dysfunctions noted in the medical evidence which resulted from scarring and disfigurement due to claimant’s injuries.” Therefore, since the commission’s decision is supported by some evidence in the record, this court will not disturb those findings. State ex rel. Milburn v. Indus. Comm. (1986), 26 Ohio St.3d 119, 26 OBR 102, 498 N.E.2d 440. Accordingly, the judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick and Pfeifer, JJ., concur.

Wright and Cook, JJ., dissent.

Wright, J.,

dissenting. This court today upholds a determination by the Industrial Commission of a fifty percent permanent partial disability that is in large part attributable to a disfigurement. Such a determination is contrary to statutory law (see R.C. 4123.57[B]) and longstanding case law. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.

Not all disfigurements caused by industrial accidents are compensable. State ex rel. Butram v. Indus. Comm. (1932), 124 Ohio St. 589, 180 N.E. 61, paragraph one of the syllabus. The court held that only those disfigurements that affect the face or head, which are serious, and which impair the disfigured person’s ability to secure or retain employment are compensable. Id. That holding is now codified as part of R.C. 4123.57(B). Betzner has not applied for an award under R.C. 4123.57(B), which is the exclusive section of R.C. Chapter 4123 that allows compensation for disfigurement. The disfigurement suffered by Betzner, grievous as it is, is not compensable as a percentage of permanent partial disability.

The issue here is whether the PPD award to Betzner included a percentage for disfigurement. Given that the doctors’ reports relied on by the commission allocate forty percent of the whole person (of a fifty percent award) to “disfigurement impairment,” I would limit the determination of permanent partial disability to ten percent: the maximum disability in the record that is wholly attributable to medical impairment and therefore the maximum disability for which there is some evidence.

Thus, for the reasons stated, I respectfully dissent.

Cook, J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion.