Case Title: Taber v. Tole Landscape Co.

Citation: 188 Kan. 312, 362 P.2d 17

Docket Number: 42,435

State: kansas

Court: Kansas Supreme Court

Date: 1961-05-13T00:00:00Z

Document:
188 Kan. 312 (1961)
362 P.2d 17
MARION A. TABER, Appellant,
v.
WILLIAM TOLE, d/b/a TOLE LANDSCAPE COMPANY, and CENTRAL SURETY AND INSURANCE CORPORATION, Appellees.
No. 42,435

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed May 13, 1961.
Otto J. Koerner, of Wichita, argued the cause and was on the brief for the appellant.
R.L. White, of Pittsburg, argued the cause, and R.L. Letton and J. Curtis Nettels, both of Pittsburg, were with him on the brief for the appellees.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
PRICE, J.:
This is a workmen's compensation case, and the appeal is by claimant from an award made pursuant to a hearing under the review and modification statute (G.S. 1959 Supp. 44-528).
On August 2, 1955, claimant suffered a heatstroke while working as a laborer for respondent landscape company. Both the commissioner and the district court held that his injury was compensable, and the original award, dated July 24, 1956, in pertinent part, was:
The employer and its insurance carrier appealed, and the only question presented was whether, under the facts and circumstances shown, injury resulting from a heatstroke was compensable. This court held that it was and affirmed the award (Taber v. Tole Landscape Co., 181 Kan. 616, 313 P.2d 290).
Payments under the award were made as they became due. On May 20, 1960, claimant filed an application for review and modification under the above-mentioned statute, and also an application for a lump-sum payment of the balance due under the July, 1956, *313 award (G.S. 1959 Supp. 44-531). The application for review and modification stated in part:
On oral argument of this appeal counsel for claimant stated that the word "partial" was inadvertently and mistakenly inserted in the application, and that the purpose of the application was to have the original award on the basis of temporary total disability modified and changed to permanent total disability. Be that as it may  and disregarding technicalities  it is apparent from the record that the hearing of July 12, 1960, was conducted by the commissioner and the parties in conformity with the procedure outlined by the review and modification statute.
Considerable evidence was introduced at that hearing, and on September 9, 1960, the commissioner filed his findings and award as follow:
"STIPULATIONS.
"SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE.
"FINDINGS.
"ORDER.
Both claimant and the employer appealed to the district court, and on November 30, 1960, the court approved and adopted the findings and award of the commissioner and entered judgment accordingly. Claimant has appealed. The employer and its insurance carrier have not cross-appealed.
One of claimant's contentions is that because of his "limited" application for review and modification, the extent of his disability  that is, the quality of totality  was not before the court. We do not agree. The review and modification statute provides that the commissioner may modify such award upon such terms as may be just *315 by increasing or diminishing the compensation, and, under certain circumstances, may cancel the award and end the compensation. An award of compensation made pursuant to the provisions of the review and modification statute constitutes a new award (Brewington v. Western Union, 163 Kan. 534, 183 P.2d 872, syl. 5), and on appeal to the district court the same legal principles control that apply to an original hearing in a compensation case (Jones v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 165 Kan. 1, 8, 192 P.2d 141).
We do, however, believe there is merit to another contention made by claimant, which, although variously stated, points to the fact the court erred in basing its findings of 66 2/3 per cent permanent partial disability on the fact claimant had secured a teaching position paying him $3,900 per year. As before stated, the court approved and adopted the findings of the commissioner, quoted above, and from those findings it is readily apparent the basis for modifying and reducing the degree of disability from total to 66 2/3 per cent was the fact claimant had rehabilitated himself to the extent of obtaining an education and securing a teaching position. This, we believe, was error.
Because of the disposition being made of this appeal it is unnecessary to detail the evidence and our discussion will be confined to the point of law involved and the cases relied on by claimant for reversal.
In Sauvain v. Battelle, 100 Kan. 468, 471, 164 Pac. 1086, it was said that when one is totally or partially incapacitated for hard manual labor he is not to be denied compensation because he obtains employment, even at better wages, at a task which he is physically able to perform. To the same general effect is Raffaghelle v. Russell, 103 Kan. 849, 851, 176 Pac. 640. In Daugherty v. National Gypsum Co., 182 Kan. 197, 318 P.2d 1012, it was said that the criterion for compensation under the statute is disability of the workman resulting from personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment; that disability is the inability of the workman to perform work he was able to perform prior to his injury, and is the test by which compensation is measured; that the whole theory underlying the compensation act is that by reason of his accident the employer is required to compensate the workman for loss resulting by reason of his inability to perform the same labor he was able to perform prior to the injury, and that the rule is based upon the fact that partial general body disability is a definite loss to the *316 injured workman and is a deterrent to his obtaining and retaining work in the open labor market. In Smith v. Jones, 185 Kan. 505, 345 P.2d 640, it was held the trial court erred in concluding that an employee was not entitled to receive any more compensation at all because it did not believe it proper for a workman to draw full compensation benefits and still work on a job and draw full pay.
While here the findings do not specifically say so "in so many words"  it is very obvious the trial court's reduction of the degree of disability from total to 66 2/3 per cent was based on the fact claimant had secured the teaching position. In the Daugherty case, above, it also was said that permanent partial disability of an injured workman, based upon substantial medical testimony, is compensable notwithstanding he may earn as much or more after his injury in the same or other employment. Our conclusion is that the court placed too much emphasis on the fact claimant had secured employment in another line of work and did not fully consider the evidence relating to his inability to perform work he was able to perform prior to his injury. The judgment is therefore reversed with directions to the trial court to proceed in accord with the conclusions herein announced.
PRICE, J., dissenting:
I believe this appeal has been decided incorrectly and therefore dissent.
Neither the commissioner, the trial court, the employer, nor the writer, disputes the fact claimant sustained a permanent injury and therefore is entitled to compensation notwithstanding he is now gainfully employed in another line of work. He is to be commended for not permitting himself to become a burden to his family or society because of his disability. The allowance of an award for permanent partial disability, notwithstanding an injured workman may be earning as much or more after his injury in the same or other employment, as upheld in the Daugherty case, is precisely what was done here. Compensation was not terminated  the court merely found, on substantial evidence, that claimant was 66 2/3 per cent permanently partially disabled and made an award accordingly, and I think it is an unwarranted assumption to say the trial court based its reduction from total to two-thirds disability because claimant had secured remunerative employment in another field. In the very nature of things  and particularly on a hearing for review and modification  the work being performed by a claimant *317 at the time of the hearing, or at any other time subsequent to the injury, is evidence to be considered along with other evidence, but of course is not controlling. (McGhee v. Sinclair Refining Co., 146 Kan. 653, 659, 73 P.2d 39, 118 A.L.R. 725.)
Even in cases involving the workmen's compensation act  which is to be construed liberally in favor of an injured workman  an appeal by a claimant should not be turned into a quest for error. As applied to the facts of this case I think the reasoning and findings of the commissioner, which were approved and adopted by the trial court, were correct. The award is supported by the record and the judgment should be affirmed.