Title: Egbert v. Industrial Commission
Citation: 378 P.2d 482, 93 Ariz. 33
Docket Number: 7692
State: Arizona
Issuer: Arizona Supreme Court
Date: February 6, 1963

93 Ariz. 33 (1963) 378 P.2d 482 Eliza Ridd EGBERT, Petitioner, v. The INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION of Arizona and Monarch Swimming Pool Equipment Company, Inc., Respondents. No. 7692. Supreme Court of Arizona, En Banc. February 6, 1963. *34 Herbert B. Finn, and Lawrence J. Sandell, of Phoenix, for petitioner. Lorin G. Shelley, Phoenix, for respondent Industrial Commission of Arizona; Donald J. Morgan, C.E. Singer, Jr., Ben P. Marshall, Laurence Davis, Phoenix, of counsel. JENNINGS, Justice. Petitioner, Eliza Ridd Egbert, seeks by writ of certiorari to set aside an award of the Industrial Commission (hereinafter called Commission) on the ground that the findings and award of the Commission are not supported by the evidence. Petitioner was employed as a bookkeeper by Monarch Swimming Pool Equipment Company, Inc. On November 18, 1960 she sustained an injury to her hip. The injury occurred as petitioner turned in her office chair and bumped her toe on the leg of the desk thereby causing her to twist her hip. The injury aggravated a preexisting condition of arthritis of the right hip joint. On February 15, 1962 the Commission made and entered its Findings and Award For Scheduled Permanent Disability finding in part: The findings and award were affirmed on rehearing on July 3, 1962. Petitioner disputes only finding No. 7 wherein the Commission found petitioner had a permanent partial disability equal to a 10% loss of function of the right leg. She contends that such finding is not supported by the evidence. The finding was *35 based upon the doctors' consultation report of January 18, 1962[1] wherein it was stated: In determining the amount of compensation to be paid for the partial loss of use of a leg, A.R.S. § 23-1044, subd. B provides in pertinent part: Although an injury to the hip is not classified and specifically compensated under A.R.S. § 23-1044, subd. B, it is compensable as an injury to the leg. Ujevich v. Inspiration Consolidated Copper Co., 44 Ariz. 16, 33 P.2d 599 (1934). The term "partial loss of use" (as set forth in A.R.S. § 23-1044, subd. B (21)) refers to a percentage of physical functional disability rather than to a proportional loss of capability of the injured employee to perform the work previously done by him. Weiss v. Industrial Commission, 87 Ariz. 21, 347 P.2d 578 (1959). In explaining the consultation report of January 18, 1962, Dr. Bishop testified as follows: As to the manner and method he used in arriving at the percentage of disability Dr. Bishop testified that: Dr. Lofdahl testified as to the method he used in arriving at the percentage of disability as follows: The Commission may adopt the findings of medical consultants in determining the loss of function or use of a particular extremity, Shaw v. Salt River Valley Water Users Ass'n, 69 Ariz. 309, 213 P.2d 378 (1950). In Shaw the Commission accepted the findings of the examing medical board that petitioner suffered a 10% functional disability to his left (minor) arm. Although the Court agreed *37 with petitioner that the medical experts' finding of a 10% functional disability was more or less arbitrary it stated that: Although the Commission may adopt the findings of medical consultants, medical opinion alone is not enough upon which to base an award. Hemphill v. Industrial Commission, 91 Ariz. 322, 372 P.2d 327 (1962). The medical evidence upon which an award is based must consist of findings of medical facts concerning the condition of the petitioner. Hemphill v. Industrial Commission, supra; McAllister v. Industrial Commission, 83 Ariz. 213, 319 P.2d 129 (1957); Tashner v. Industrial Commission, 62 Ariz. 333, 157 P.2d 608 (1945). In the case at bar petitioner was examined in consultation on June 15, 1961 by Drs. Bishop and Edwards.[2] At that time they concluded: Dr. Bishop reported to the Commission on August 31, 1961 that petitioner was not improving significantly, still had marked limitation of motion and pain in the right hip and was walking on crutches.[3] On September 22, 1961, Drs. Alvin L. Swenson, Malcolm F. Dorfman and James R. Moore saw petitioner in consultation. At that time the doctors stated in their report that: Petitioner failed to respond to treatments of a conservative type and surgery was therefore recommended. Inasmuch as only a "fair result" could be achieved from surgery, petitioner decided against it.[5] Therefore, the final consultation was held on January 18, 1962. Dr. Bishop testified that petitioner's condition was essentially the same at the time of the last consultation on January 18, 1962 as it was at the first consultation on June 15, 1961. He also stated that "anything that we tried to do for her from the time * * * [he] first saw her * * * up to the time her case was closed, nothing except pain pills helped her. * * * In fact, her condition and her complaints were much worse when she was discharged than they were when she was transferred to me for treatment." It was his opinion that there would be no improvement in petitioner's condition. He also testified that petitioner could not balance herself as well as a normal person; that she was limited in lifting and carrying; that she had more difficulty than a normal person in getting up or sitting down; that she would have difficulty getting down to and up from a kneeling position; that she could not squat in a normal fashion; and that her hip movements would be more awkward and clumsy than normal. Dr. Lofdahl's testimony with reference to the effect petitioner's injury would have on these activities was as follows: Petitioner is 53 years old and is not trained for any type of work other than bookkeeping. In answer to the question as to what limitations this condition imposed upon her activities she stated "I don't stoop. I can't lift. I can't sit. I can't walk without pain." She said that her *40 condition, instead of getting better, seemed to be getting worse. It is apparent from reading the record and the reporter's transcript of the proceedings that the Commission, in finding that petitioner suffered a 10% loss of function of the right leg, failed to consider anything other than the medical opinion contained in the report of January 18, 1962. Although the Commission may adopt findings of medical consultants they cannot base an award on medical opinion alone, especially when such opinion is not supported by the evidence. Hemphill v. Industrial Commission, supra; McAllister v. Industrial Commission, supra; Tashner v. Industrial Commission, supra. In view of the facts concerning the condition of the petitioner, we do not think that it necessarily follows that "a thirty per cent disability of the hip amounts to a ten per cent disability of the leg since the hip is one-third of the entire leg." A.R.S. § 23-1044, subd. B requires that compensation for the partial loss of use of a leg be based on "loss of use." The evidence in the record does not substantiate the finding of the Commission as to the percentage of loss of use of the petitioner's leg. It indicates that the disability is much greater. The award is set aside. CHARLES C. BERNSTEIN, C.J., UDALL, Vice C.J., STRUCKMEYER and LOCKWOOD, JJ., concur. [1] The doctors participating in the consultation were W.A. Bishop, Jr., C.M. Lofdahl and W.V. Edwards. [2] Petitioner was first seen by Dr. J.N. Wahlrab on November 18, 1960. He treated her until June 15, 1961 (date of the first consulation) after which time she was treated by Dr. Bishop. [3] Dr. Bishop put petitioner on crutches as soon as he started treating her. Her condition subsequent to that time never improved sufficiently to enable her to discard the crutches. [4] They indicated that some type of arthroplasty might be required on the right hip depending upon the further progress and degree of functional impairment. [5] The operation would have involved the substitution of the dead or diseased head in the socket of petitioner's right hip with that of a metal head.