Title: State ex rel. Wyoming Worker's Compensation Div. v. Colvin

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

State ex rel. Wyoming Worker's Compensation Div. v. Colvin1984 WY 46681 P.2d 269Case Number: 83-238, 83-239Decided: 05/10/1984THE STATE OF WYOMING, EX REL. WYOMING WORKER'S COMPENSATION DIVISION, APPELLANT (OBJECTOR-DEFENDANT),

v.

MONTY COLVIN, APPELLEE (EMPLOYEE-CLAIMANT).

MONTY COLVIN, APPELLANT (EMPLOYEE-CLAIMANT),

v.

THE STATE OF WYOMING, EX REL. WYOMING WORKER'S COMPENSATION DIVISION, APPELLEE (OBJECTOR-DEFENDANT).

Supreme Court of Wyoming
THE STATE OF WYOMING, EX REL. WYOMING WORKER'S COMPENSATION DIVISION, 
APPELLANT (OBJECTOR-DEFENDANT),

v.

MONTY COLVIN, APPELLEE 
(EMPLOYEE-CLAIMANT).

MONTY COLVIN, APPELLANT 
(EMPLOYEE-CLAIMANT),

v.

THE STATE OF WYOMING, EX REL. WYOMING WORKER'S COMPENSATION DIVISION, 
APPELLEE (OBJECTOR-DEFENDANT).

Appeal from the District 
Court, CrookCounty, Paul T. Liamos, 
Jr., J.

A.G. McClintock, 
Atty. Gen., Gerald A. Stack, Deputy Atty. Gen., John W. Renneisen, Sr. Asst. 
Atty. Gen., Terry J. Harris, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant, State of Wyoming, in 

No. 83-238 and 
appellee in No. 83-239.

R. Douglas 
Dumbrill of Hughes & Dumbrill, Sundance, for appellee Monty Colvin, in No. 
83-238 and appellant in No. 83-239.

Before ROONEY, C.J., and THOMAS, ROSE, BROWN, and 
CARDINE, JJ.

BROWN, 
Justice.

[¶1.]     This is an appeal and 
cross-appeal from an order awarding worker's compensation benefits to 
employee-claimant Monty Colvin for a work-related injury. The State of 
Wyoming claims 
that there was insufficient evidence to support the award, and the claimant 
argues that he should have been awarded more.

[¶2.]     We 
affirm.

[¶3.]     The statement of the 
issues presented by the state is:

"I. Whether a permanently 
partially disabled employee, entitled to compensation under the statutory 
schedule contained in Section 27-12-403(c), W.S. 1977, may elect to receive a 
larger recovery under Section 27-12-403(h), W.S. 1977, the larger recovery 
brought about by what the district court perceived to be an element of 
vocational disability?

"II. If the specifically 
scheduled recovery provided for in Section 27-12-403(c), W.S. 1977, is not 
claimant's exclusive remedy, whether there was sufficient evidence to support 
the district court's holding that claimant suffered from a fifty percent (50%) 
permanent partial disability to the right arm above the 
elbow?"

The state 
conceded the first issue during oral argument; therefore, we will only address 
the second issue.

[¶4.]     The issue raised by 
Colvin on appeal is whether he is entitled to receive compensation provided for 
under § 27-12-403(c), W.S. 1977 (June 1983 Replacement), due to the partial loss 
of a metacarpal bone in addition to the award granted by the trial 
court.

[¶5.]     Claimant was involved 
in an accident at the Johnson Sawmill while he was removing timber from the 
bucking saw platform when the counter weight fell off, and the saw fell on his 
right hand. Claimant lost his right index finger completely and the head of the 
second metacarpal bone. There was some nerve and tendon damage which had to be 
repaired in the long finger, causing considerable loss of function to the long 
finger. There was also evidence that there was permanent soft tissue injury in 
claimant's hand which caused a slight loss of function of the thumb due to a 
nicked extensor tendon. At trial Dr. Conrad F.J. Blunck testified that these 
injuries translated into an approximate 34 percent impairment to the use of the 
upper right arm. Additionally, evidence at trial showed that Colvin was trained 
as a mechanical draftsman but was temporarily working at the sawmill because he 
had been layed off from his usual work as a mechanical draftsman. Because of his 
injuries, his ability to perform work as a draftsman had been diminished by at 
least 50 percent.

[¶6.]     After hearing the 
evidence and arguments of counsel, the trial court found that the permanent 
partial disability of the claimant was a 50 percent loss of the right arm above 
the elbow, and awarded him $17,503.50.

[¶7.]     We first address the 
state's sufficiency of the evidence issue. A trial court's finding of disability 
and percentage of disability will not be overturned or modified by this court on 
appeal when there is substantial evidence to support such findings. Schepanovich v. United States Steel 
Corporation, Wyo., 669 P.2d 522 (1983). Also, the claimant, 
as appellee, is entitled to have the evidence in support of his claim taken as 
true and given every favorable inference which fairly and reasonably may be 
drawn from it. As we have repeatedly said, testimony in conflict with that of 
the prevailing party may be disregarded. Exploration Drilling Company v. Guthrie, Wyo., 370 P.2d 362 
(1962).

[¶8.]     Section 27-12-403(c), 
W.S. 1977, states:

"(c) For any permanent 
partial disability hereinafter described, the employee shall receive a total 
award equivalent to two-thirds (2/3) of the state's average weekly wage for the 
twelve (12) months preceding the quarter in which the injury occurred, as 
determined in W.S. 27-386, multiplied by the following number of 
weeks:

* * * * * 
*

"(ii) For the loss of a 
first finger ............................................................ 29 
weeks

"(iii) For the loss of 
any other finger ... 15 weeks

"(iv) For the loss of a 
palm (metacarpal bone) ..................................... 115 
weeks

"(v) For the loss of a 
hand .................................................................... 122 
weeks

* * * * * 
*

"(vii) For the loss of 
arm above elbow ... 150 weeks 

* * 
*"

Section 
27-12-403(h), W.S. 1977 (June 1983 Replacement), also deals with permanent 
partial disabilities, and provides:

"(h) For any other injury 
known to surgery or medicine to constitute permanent partial disability, the 
employee shall receive compensation in the amount proportional to the extent of 
permanent partial disability based as near as may be upon the foregoing 
schedule. One (1) factor to be considered is the ability of the employee to 
continue to perform work for which he was reasonably suited by experience or 
training prior to the injury."

[¶9.]     The state contends that 
there was insufficient evidence to support a finding of 50 percent permanent 
partial disability to the right arm above the elbow. The state bases its 
contention on three grounds: (1) all of the witnesses, other than the doctor, 
are close to and or related to claimant; (2) all of the witnesses, other than 
Dr. Blunck, are nonmedical witnesses; and (3) all limit their testimony to the 
effect claimant's injury had upon his ability to perform mechanical drafting 
tasks rather than the effect of the injury on claimant's ability "to perform 
work for which he was reasonably suited by experience or training prior to the 
injury." Section 27-12-403(h), W.S. 1977.

[¶10.]  The trial court is in a better position 
to judge the demeanor, truth and veracity of the witnesses. It is obvious from 
the trial court's determination of this case that it was persuaded by the 
testimony of the nonmedical witnesses, including the claimant. It is within the 
prerogative of the trier of fact to decide what evidence is most dependable. Cederburg v. Carter, Wyo., 448 P.2d 608 
(1968). This we will not disturb on appeal.

[¶11.]  The state further argues that there must 
be some opinion given as to a percentage of claimed permanent partial disability 
and that absent such opinion, the record would be susceptible to a finding that 
claimant had failed to carry his burden of proof as required in Conn v. Ed Wederski Construction Company, 
Wyo., 668 P.2d 649 (1983). The state goes on to point out that § 
27-12-403(h), W.S. 1977, indicates that a medical opinion must be given as to 
the permanent partial disability because it must be an "injury known to surgery 
or medicine to constitute permanent partial disability." From this the state 
reasons that the testimony of non-medical witnesses is not sufficient to meet 
the requirements for an opinion as required in Conn, supra, and § 27-12-403(h), W.S. 
1977.

[¶12.]  Conn, supra, indicates that an opinion must 
be presented as to the percentage of permanent partial disability. In Conn, however, it was the opinion of two 
physicians that there was no permanent total disability and the opinion of 
another physician that there was a permanent disability with respect to which he 
would assign no percentage of impairment.

[¶13.]  In this case we have the opinion of a 
physician who finds permanent partial disability and assigns a 34 percent loss 
of function to the right upper extremity. The state urges that the trial court 
was, therefore, bound by the opinion of the testifying physician and could not 
award a greater percentage of disability.

[¶14.]  Section 27-12-403(h), W.S. 1977, allows 
the trial court to take into consideration the claimant's decreased ability to 
perform work for which he was reasonably suited before the injury. The physician 
was not qualified, by his own admission, to testify as to the claimant's 
decreased ability to perform his preinjury occupation. The trial court, 
therefore, took testimony from witnesses familiar with the claimant, his 
occupation, and the claimant's ability to engage in that occupation after the 
accident. The trial court also heard testimony from the claimant himself 
concerning the detrimental effect the injury had on his ability to continue in 
his profession. After hearing such testimony, the trial court increased the 
percentage of disability from 34 percent to 50 percent. In this we find no 
error.

[¶15.]  The state next argues that mechanical 
drafting was not the only work for which Colvin was reasonably suited by 
experience or training before the injury. Section 27-12-403(h), W.S. 1977. A 
plain reading of the statute would indicate to us that the trial court properly 
considered the impairment to claimant's ability to perform mechanical drafting 
tasks. Claimant had both training and experience in the mechanical drafting 
field and considered it his profession. We believe that the statute was designed 
to allow the trial court to consider the work for which a claimant was suited 
before the injury and how he was impaired in performing this work after the 
injury when determining the compensation a claimant should 
receive.

[¶16.]  In his cross-appeal claimant contends 
that the uselessness of his second metacarpal bone should have been compensated 
for under § 27-12-403(c)(iv), W.S. 1977, which provides compensation for "the 
loss of palm (metacarpal bone)." The metacarpal bones form the skeleton of the 
palm. The head of each metacarpal bone supports the bones of the digits. There 
are five metacarpal bones, one for each digit. Text Book of Anatomy, Cunningham, 
5th ed., p. 223. Therefore, the right second metacarpal bone supports the index 
finger of the right hand. Claimant lost the right index finger and the head of 
the second metacarpal bone in the accident.

[¶17.]  The state argues that the statute 
specifies the loss of an entire palm and the parenthetical language simply 
points out that the palm is made up of metacarpal bones. The testimony at trial 
indicated that the claimant lost only the head of his second metacarpal bone, to 
which the physician assigned no specific percentage impairment other than that 
assigned for the loss and partial loss of the fingers and thumb and the arm 
above the elbow. The testifying physician's opinion concerning a percentage 
impairment took into consideration the entire injury which claimant suffered, 
that is, loss of the index finger and head of the metacarpal bone, and damage to 
the long finger and thumb. Therefore, an additional award for the loss of the 
palm would constitute double recovery. A claimant cannot properly be compensated 
for the partial loss of his entire arm and also be compensated for the 
individual injuries to the same member.

[¶18.]  Affirmed.