Title: Arrington v. Stone & Webster Engineering Corp.

State: north-carolina

Issuer: North Carolina Supreme Court

Document:

140 S.E.2d 759 (1965)
264 N.C. 38
Prince ARRINGTON, Jr., Employee,
v.
STONE & WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION, Employer, and Royal Indemnity Company, Carrier.
No. 203.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.
March 17, 1965.
*760 Allsbrook, Benton & Knott, Roanoke Rapids, for plaintiff.
Smith, Moore, Smith, Schell & Hunter and Stephen Millikin, Greensboro, for defendants.
MOORE, Justice.
Plaintiff's argument for reversal of the superior court judgment is but an elaboration of the reasoning, conclusions and findings contained in the following excerpts from the opinion and award of the Full Commission:
Under the present law, G.S. § 97-31(24), an award of compensation for loss of sense of taste or smell would unquestionably be sustained, where from the circumstances it could be reasonably presumed that the workman suffered diminution of his future earning power by reason of such loss. In 1963, G.S. § 97-31 was amended by striking a clause from subsection (22) thereof and adding subsection (24). S.L.1963, c. 424. The amending statute is not retroactive. The accident in question occurred in 1961. Therefore, plaintiff's claim based on loss of senses of taste and smell must be considered in the light of the provisions of G.S. § 97-31 as they existed prior to the 1963 amendment and at the time of the injury.
The pertinent provisions of G.S. § 97-31 are discussed and construed in Davis v. *761 Sanford Construction Co., supra (1957), which involved a claim for loss of two upper front teeth. The question was whether the loss was compensable as a disfigurement. At the time the opinion was delivered the following subsections of G.S. § 97-31 were in force:
The following excerpts from the Davis opinion have authoritative bearing upon the question for decision in the instant case:
Among other things, the Davis case holds, in effect, that subsection (w) deals with disfigurement of the body as distinguished from disfigurement of the head. Subsection (v) deals exclusively with disfigurement of the face and head. The distinction is implicit in the statute; the General Assembly made provision for compensation for disfigurement of the head and body in separate subsections, and made compensation for head disfigurement mandatory and compensation for bodily disfigurement discretionary. The 1957 amendment of subsection (w) does not so extend its meaning as to override the distinction. Had the General Assembly intended to extend the amendatory provisions to subsection (v), it would have expressly or by reference incorporated them therein. "Where there are two provisions in a statute, one of which is special or particular and the other general, which, if standing alone, would conflict with the particular provision, the special will be taken as intended to constitute an exception to the general provision, as the General Assembly is not presumed to have intended a conflict." 4 Strong: N.C.Index, Statutes, s. 5, pp. 182, 183.
The Commission undoubtedly recognized the distinction discussed above, for it held that the loss of the senses of taste and smell "constitutes serious facial or head disfigurement within the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Act, for which proper and equitable compensation is $1000.00. G.S. § 97-31(21)." As noted above, subsection (21) was formerly subsection (v). We agree that the organs of taste and smell are organs of the head. But we do not agree that loss of the senses of taste and smell is compensable under the subsection applicable to head disfigurement. That subsection provides for compensation only in case of "serious facial or head disfigurement." As stated in Davis, "there is a serious disfigurement in law only when there is a serious disfigurement in fact." "A disfigurement * * * is a blemish, a blot, a scar or a mutilation that is external and observable, marring the appearance." Branham v. Panel Co., 223 N.C. 233, 25 S.E.2d 865. Loss of the senses of taste and smell is not in fact a disfigurement of the face or head.
We are urged to reverse the superior court judgment because the Industrial Commission has heretofore made awards "in many cases for the loss of the senses of taste and smell as disfigurement." The Commission's interpretation of the *763 statute is persuasive but not controlling. "The interpretation by the department responsible for the administration of a legislative act is helpful to a court when called upon to construe legislative language. In re Application for Reassignment [of Pupils], 247 N.C. 413, 420, 101 S.E.2d 359. The construction placed upon legislation by the officer charged with administration thereof will be given due consideration by the courts, although such construction is not controlling. If there should be a conflict between administrative interpretation and the interpretation of the courts, the latter will prevail. Campbell v. Currie, 251 N.C. 329, 333, 111 S.E.2d 319." Faizan v. Grain Dealers Mutual Insurance Co., 254 N.C. 47, 57, 118 S.E.2d 303. The interpretation of the Commission is in conflict with the decisions of this Court.
Affirmed.