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

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

Parnell v. State ex rel. Wyoming Worker's Compensation Div1987 WY 49735 P.2d 1367Case Number: 86-41Decided: 04/21/1987Supreme Court of Wyoming
Ray 
PARNELL, Appellant (Employee-Claimant

 
 
v.

 
 
The 
STATE of Wyoming, ex rel. Wyoming WORKER'S COMPENSATION DIVISION, 
Appellee (Objector-Defendant), Getter Trucking, Inc. 
(Employer-Defendant)

 
 
Donald 
L. Painter, Casper, for Appellant.

 
 
A. G. 
McClintock, Attorney General, Josephine T. Porter, Assistant Attorney General, 
and Patrick J. Crank, Assistant Attorney General, for Appellee; argument by Mr. 
Crank. 

 
 
Brown, 
C.J., and Thomas, Cardine, Urbigkit, and Macy, JJ. Cardine, J., delivered the 
opinion of the court; Brown, C.J., filed a dissenting opinion. 

 
 
CARDINE, 
Justice.

 
 

[¶1.]     The principal issue in 
this worker's compensation case is whether an employee who receives a lump sum 
permanent partial disability award and subsequently sustains an increase of 
incapacity due to the original injury is precluded from receiving temporary 
total disability benefits unless his permanent partial disability has increased. 
Another issue, raised by the State, is whether the district court's denial of 
appellant's temporary total disability claim should be upheld because the record 
contains insufficient evidence of appellant's increase of 
incapacity.

 
 

[¶2.]     We 
reverse.

 
 
FACTS

 
 

[¶3.]     After his legs were 
crushed between the beds of two large oil field trucks, appellant Ray Parnell 
sought compensation under the Wyoming Worker's Compensation Act. He received 
temporary total disability and medical expenses for the initial period of 
recovery from his injuries. When appellant's condition had stabilized to a point 
at which a permanent partial disability rating could be made, his physician 
assigned a rating of 20 percent permanent impairment to appellant's left leg and 
35 percent impairment to appellant's right leg. In his letter assigning these 
ratings, the physician noted that appellant needed further surgery for removal 
of rods that had been placed in his left leg and that the additional surgery 
would result in a period of temporary total disability. On June 20, 1985, 
appellant received a lump sum permanent partial disability award in the amount 
of $26,268.39 for the permanent impairment to his legs and resulting 
psychological trauma.

 
 

[¶4.]     The rods in appellant's 
left leg were surgically removed on September 10, 1985. On October 23, 1985, he 
filed a claim for temporary total disability benefits for the period of recovery 
following the surgery. The district court denied the temporary total disability 
award, concluding that under this court's holding in Matter of Abas, Wyo., 
701 P.2d 1153 (1985), the award could be made only if the claimant showed 
an increase in permanent partial disability. Mr. Parnell now appeals from the 
district court's order denying temporary total disability 
benefits.

 
 
INCREASE 
OF INCAPACITY

 
 

[¶5.]     The Wyoming Worker's 
Compensation Act contemplates three types of disability: temporary total 
disability, permanent partial disability, and permanent total disability. 
Section 27-12-402, W.S.1977, Cum.Supp.1986; §§ 27-12-403 and 27-12-405, 
W.S.1977. In the usual case, temporary total disability will be awarded for a 
single initial period of recovery and stabilization. See Pacific Power and Light v. Parsons, Wyo., 692 P.2d 226, 228 (1984). Once 
stabilization occurs, the extent of permanent disability, whether partial or 
total, should be determined and the employee should receive an appropriate 
award. Such an award is "subject to the concept of finality." Conn v. Ed Wederski Construction Company, Wyo., 668 P.2d 649, 653 
(1983).

 
 

[¶6.]     Ideally, an injured 
employee will not return to a condition of temporary total disability after 
receiving a permanent partial disability award. But some cases, like the present 
case, do not follow the ideal pattern. Realizing this, the legislature enacted § 
27-12-606, W.S.1977, which allows an employee to apply for "additional benefits 
of any type or nature" on the ground of increase of 
incapacity:

 
 
"Where 
an award of compensation has been made in favor of or on behalf of an employee 
for any benefits under this act [§§ 27-12-101 through 27-12-804], an application 
may be made to the clerk of district court by any party within four (4) years 
from the date of the last award, or at any time during which monthly payments 
under an award are being made, for additional benefits of any type or nature or 
for a modification of the amount of the award on the ground of increase or 
decrease of incapacity due solely to the injury, or upon grounds of mistake or 
fraud."

 
 
The Act 
does not define the term "increase of incapacity." We think it is clear, 
however, that when an employee's condition changes from permanent partial 
disability to temporary total disability, his incapacity is increased. To 
the extent that Matter of Abas, supra, 701 P.2d 1153, supports a different 
conclusion, it is hereby overruled.

 
 

[¶7.]     The State concedes that 
if the rods had been removed from Mr. Parnell's leg before he received his 
permanent partial disability award, he would have been entitled to temporary 
total disability benefits for the period of his recovery following the surgery. 
In Fuhs v. Swenson, 58 Wyo. 293, 131 P.2d 333, 338 (1942), we 
held that

 
 
"'the 
[Worker's] Compensation Law of this State should be liberally and reasonably 
construed to protect persons suffering casualties in industry and to avoid 
incongruous results.'" (Quoting In re 
Pope, 54 Wyo. 266, 91 P.2d 58 
(1939).)

 
 
If we 
were to affirm the district court's ruling, we would be reaching the incongruous 
result of allowing different amounts of compensation to similarly situated 
employees based on the nature and timing of their treatment and recovery. Mr. 
Parnell should not be penalized because his case did not follow the ideal 
pattern described above. When he became temporarily and totally disabled after 
the rod removal surgery, Mr. Parnell sustained an increase of incapacity and 
was, therefore, entitled to additional benefits under § 27-12-606, supra, 
regardless of whether his permanent partial disability had 
increased.

 
 

[¶8.]     Our decision in this 
case does not mean that an employee may be totally disabled and partially 
disabled at the same time. Such a result would ignore the principle, implied in 
the Worker's Compensation Act, that total disability is the maximum disability 
possible under the Act. If an employee is receiving monthly permanent partial 
disability payments, which is the usual case, and then receives a temporary 
total disability award, the permanent partial disability payments should be 
suspended during the period of temporary total disability and resumed when the 
period of temporary total disability has ended. An employee who has received a 
lump sum award should be treated similarly, i.e., his permanent partial 
disability should be deemed to be suspended during the period of temporary total 
disability.

 
 
SUFFICIENCY 
OF THE EVIDENCE

 
 

[¶9.]     The State contends that 
even if Mr. Parnell were entitled to a subsequent temporary total disability 
award under § 27-12-606, supra, his claim should be denied because he failed to 
prove that he was totally and temporarily disabled after his surgery. In 
resisting this argument, appellant urges that the claim is supported by 
appellant's testimony that he was unable to work for eight weeks and by a letter 
from his physician stating:

 
 
"The 
most recent surgical procedure performed on Mr. Parnell was removal of a metal 
rod from his left femur. This operation was performed September 10, 1985. The 
operation went quite well, and the rod was removed without difficulty. Mr. 
Parnell was informed, prior to the operation, that he would need to be on 
crutches for six weeks following the operation because the rod removal 
temporarily weakens the femur for a period of about six weeks. As a result of 
this need for crutch use, it is most appropriate that Mr. Parnell be placed on 
total temporary disability for the six weeks [sic] period of time during which 
he needed to use crutches for his left leg. As a result of removing the rod, 
there is no additional permanent disability."

 
 

[¶10.]  The hearing below was not reported, and 
this appeal was submitted on a statement of the evidence pursuant to Rule 4.03, 
W.R.A.P. Consequently, we can only consider appellant's statement of the 
evidence to the extent that it was settled and approved by the district court. 
Feaster v. Feaster, Wyo., 721 P.2d 1095, 1097 
(1986); Maynard v. Maynard, Wyo., 
585 P.2d 1201, 1202 (1978). In this case, the district court 
expressly found that it had no recollection of appellant's assertion that he 
"was unable to work or be gainfully employed or gainfully self-employed" during 
his period of recovery from the rod removal surgery. Accordingly, we must 
disregard appellant's reference to his testimony on that issue. Maynard v. Maynard, 
supra.

 
 

[¶11.]  We find, however, that the letter from 
Mr. Parnell's physician provides sufficient evidence to support appellant's 
claim of temporary total disability. In his treatise on workmen's compensation 
law, Professor Larson states:

 
 
"In 
meeting the burden of proof, one of the strongest kinds of evidence is of course 
the testimony of a doctor who has examined claimant and evaluated his disability 
at both relevant times in the comparison." (Footnotes omitted.) 3 Larson, 
Workmen's Compensation Law § 81-33(c) (1983).

 
 
Appellant's 
claim for total temporary disability for a period of six weeks is supported by 
the evidence.

 
 

[¶12.]  Reversed and remanded for proceedings 
consistent with this opinion. 

 
 
BROWN, 
C.J., filed a dissenting opinion.

 
 
BROWN, 
Chief Justice, dissenting.

 
 

[¶13.]  In its opinion the majority says "our 
decision in this case does not mean that an employee may be totally disabled and 
partially disabled at the same time." However, despite this disclaimer, the 
majority authorizes payment of benefits for both permanent partial disability 
and temporary total disability for exactly the same period of 
time.

 
 

[¶14.]  On June 24, 1985, appellant received a 
permanent partial award. This award was calculated at $905.94 for 29 months for 
a total of $26,268.39. Rather than receive the monthly payments as contemplated 
by the statute, appellant importuned the court and worker's compensation 
division to make a lump sum payment -- which they did. Thereafter, appellant had 
surgery on September 10, 1985, and claims temporary total disability benefits 
for eight weeks beginning September 10. This court's decision authorizes these 
temporary total disability payments in the sum of about $1,350 per month for two 
months.1

 
 

[¶15.]  Therefore, appellant received payments at 
the rate of $905.94 per month from September 10, 1985 to November 5, 1985, as 
part of his permanent partial award, and now additionally, under this court's 
decision, he will also receive about $1,350 per month from September 10, 1985 to 
November 5, 1985, for temporary total disability. It seems only fair that 
$905.94 (which has already been received) be deducted from the $1,350 per month 
temporary total award. Appellant should be allowed $445 per month temporary 
total benefit from September 10, 1985 until November 5, 
1985.

 
 

[¶16.]  Further, while we are not talking about a 
large sum of money in this case (less than $3,000), I foresee the majority 
opinion resulting in expensive consequences. This fact may be illustrated by a 
simply hypothetical example. Suppose a worker received an award of 95 percent 
permanent partial disability. Under these circumstances the worker would be 
entitled to about $1,000 per month for sixty months. Further, suppose a year 
later after this award the worker became totally disabled for six months because 
of corrective surgery or otherwise. In these fortuitous circumstances by virtue 
of the decision in this case, the worker would also be entitled to an award for 
temporary total disability in the sum of about $1,300 per month. For a six-month 
period then the worker would get two checks -- $1,000 for partial total 
disability and $1,300 for temporary total disability. Such would result in a 
$6,000 windfall. Furthermore, other workers will no doubt hear about this 
anomaly in the law and use it to their fullest advantage.

 
 

[¶17.]  A worker cannot be totally and partially 
disabled at the same time. Consequently, he may not collect benefits for each 
concurrently. Therefore, I must dissent.

 
 
FOOTNOTES

 
 

1I estimate $1,350 per month because that 
is what he received from February 1, 1984 to July 1, 1985, before permanent 
partial award.