Case Title: State ex rel. Danis Industries Corp. v. Betzner

Citation: 1996-Ohio-128

Docket Number: 19940974

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1996-01-17T00:00:00Z

Document:
The State ex rel. Danis Industries Corporation, Appellant, v. Betzner et 
al., Appellees. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Danis Industries Corp. v. Betzner (1996), ___ Ohio St.3d 
___.] 
Workers’ compensation -- Application for determination of permanent partial 
disability -- Extensive burns to forty percent of claimant’s body -- 
Industrial Commission’s award of fifty percent permanent partial 
disability not an award for facial and head disfigurement when 
disfigurement sustained by claimant extends beyond his face and head 
region -- Industrial Commission’s decision not disturbed by Supreme 
Court when supported by some evidence in the record. 
 
(No. 94-974 -- Submitted October 10, 1995 -- Decided January 17, 
1996.) 
 
Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County No. 93APD05-
694. 
 
Appellee-claimant, Timothy J. Betzner, a cement mason for appellant, 
Danis Industries Corporation, was seriously injured on July 28, 1987 when a 
piece of equipment he was using came in contact with high tension electrical 
wires.  Claimant received an electrical shock of 70,000 volts and was knocked 
unconscious.  As a result of this industrial accident, claimant sustained 
 
2 
extensive burns to forty percent of his body and was hospitalized for sixty-two 
days.  The skin grafts claimant received caused scarring and multiple skin 
contractures.  As a result, claimant’s right arm is two and one half inches 
shorter than his left arm and he has limited range of motion. 
 
Claimant filed an application for determination of the percentage of 
permanent partial disability on July 19, 1991.  He alleged that he was unable to 
fully extend his right arm and due to the loss of sweat glands could not work in 
extreme heat or direct sunlight.  To help determine the percentage of disability, 
the commission received medical reports from four physicians.  Three of the 
four physicians agreed that claimant sustained a fifty percent permanent partial 
impairment of his whole body, with ten percent of his impairment referred to as 
a “permanent partial impairment” and the remaining forty percent as a 
“disfigurement impairment.”1  The fourth physician, Dr. Steven S. Wunder, 
who examined claimant at appellant’s request, felt that claimant’s total 
impairment was fifteen percent. 
 
On April 7, 1992, the administrator issued a tentative order allowing a 
claim for “electrical shock, multiple burns to face, back, left shoulder, right ear, 
 
3 
arm and shoulder.”  Under the tentative order, claimant was found to have a 
permanent partial disability of fifty percent.  Appellant filed an objection to the 
tentative order, which was denied by a district hearing officer.  An application 
for reconsideration was also denied by the Industrial Commission.  
 
Appellant then filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus in the Franklin 
County Court of Appeals challenging the forty percent portion of the award 
which was referred to as a “disfigurement impairment.”  Appellant alleged that 
this portion of  the award was made pursuant to R.C. 4123.57(B) for serious 
facial or head disfigurement and that the Industrial Commission abused its 
discretion in compensating claimant for serious facial or head disfigurement 
where there was no evidence to support this award.  Appellant further alleged 
that the commission’s disfigurement award exceeds the statutory limit of five 
thousand dollars.2  The matter was submitted to a referee, who ruled that the 
forty percent portion of the award was not attributable to facial or head 
disfigurement but was instead made pursuant to R.C. 4123.57(A).  The court of 
appeals adopted the referee’s findings of fact and conclusions of law and 
consequently denied the writ. 
 
4 
 
The cause is before this court upon an appeal as of right. 
__________ 
 
Chernesky, Heyman & 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. 
 
5 
 
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 
 
6 
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, F.E. SWEENEY and PFEIFER, JJ., concur. 
 
WRIGHT AND COOK, JJ., dissent. 
 
7 
 
Footnotes: 
1   Claimant’s attending physician, Dr. Allen Ferguson, Jr., simply agreed with 
Dr. Eugene T. Conte’s opinion of fifty percent impairment, but did not mention 
the term “disfigurement impairment” in his report. 
2   Pursuant to R.C. 4123.57(B), the Industrial Commission may award a 
claimant up to five thousand dollars for serious facial or head disfigurement 
which impairs or may in the future impair the opportunities to secure or to 
retain employment.  In this case, claimant’s award exceeds five thousand 
dollars. 
 
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 long-standing 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, 
 
8 
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.