Title: Scott v. Industrial Commission of Arizona
Citation: 296 P.2d 954, 80 Ariz. 280
Docket Number: 6191
State: Arizona
Issuer: Arizona Supreme Court
Date: May 8, 1956

80 Ariz. 280 (1956) 296 P.2d 954 James A. SCOTT, Petitioner, v. The INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF ARIZONA, Respondent. No. 6191. Supreme Court of Arizona. May 8, 1956. H.S. McCluskey, Phoenix, for petitioner. John F. Mills, Phoenix, for the Industrial Commission of Arizona, John R. Franks, Donald J. Morgan and Robert K. Park, Phoenix, of counsel. UDALL, Justice. Certiorari to the Industrial Commission of Arizona, respondent herein. Petitioner, James A. Scott, while in the employ of E.J. Wasielewski Construction Company as a journeyman-carpenter, was injured by an accident admittedly arising out of and in the course of his employment. The Commission assumed jurisdiction and by an appropriate order found the claim to be compensable. Petitioner, being dissatisfied with the final award holding this to be a scheduled injury has, by certiorari, brought the matter before us for review. Respondent, the Industrial Commission, appears as the insurance carrier. There is no appearance by the employer. The allegations of Par. III of the petition for writ of certiorari which were admitted to be true by the Commission's response rather graphically describe both the accident and the nature of the injuries, viz.: For a period of approximately sixteen months, between the date of injury and the time when petitioner's condition was found to be stationary, he was compensated for either total temporary or partial temporary disability, and in addition thereto was allowed "accident benefits". It would seem from an examination of the file that petitioner was given the best treatment medical science had to offer; he was hospitalized several times and was either treated or examined in all by thirteen members of the medical profession including orthopedic surgeons. However, according to Dr. Moore he did not satisfactorily respond to treatment, i.e., his condition failed to materially improve. It was not until March 2, 1955, that three medical consultants found his condition to be stationary and no further treatment indicated. Their conclusion was: The Commission by its award evidently adopted the consultants' final view that petitioner had suffered a permanent partial disability equal to 15% loss of function of the left (minor) arm; it further determined that this was a scheduled injury and hence allowed him additional compensation therefor in the sum of $203.40 monthly, for a period of seven and one-half months. (For complete loss of function of the minor arm the statute allows compensation for a period of fifty months.) This award is admittedly predicated upon the premise that petitioner suffered but one injury (i.e., to his left arm) which resulted in multiple conditions flowing therefrom. The soundness of this premise is sharply challenged by petitioner. It seems to us that the crux of this appeal is whether the record sustains the Commission's determination that petitioner's disability from his injuries falls within the classification of "scheduled injuries" enumerated under Section 23-1044, subsections B. 13 and B. 21, A.R.S. 1956. If it does, the award should be affirmed; otherwise it must be set aside. The issues are succinctly stated in petitioner's opening brief: At the outset it should be noted that we are not here confronted with resolving a conflict of evidence under the well established rules of appellate practice. Respondent admits in its brief, "In the instant case, there is no conflicting medical opinion to be dealt with." The petitioner had no independent medical witnesses. All of such evidence came from cross-examination of the doctors to whom petitioner had been referred for examination or treatment by the Commission. Having carefully examined the entire record we agree with counsel for petitioner that the evidence from the doctors as to the multiple injuries flowing from the accident stands uncontroverted. These may be briefly summarized as follows: injury to the nerve roots, or central nervous system; aggravation of pre-existing osteo-arthritic changes in the cervical spine; irritation and inflammation of the nerves emerging from the cervical spine due to compression (radiculites); 50% limitation of motion in the neck; limitation of motion and disabling pain in left shoulder due to periarthritis; disabling headaches following efforts to use arm or neck; loss of grip in left hand; loss of sensation and partial use of thumb, first and second fingers of left hand; and disabling pain in left arm upon efforts to use it for any length of time. The testimony of petitioner is uncontradicted that prior to the accident of November 5, 1953 he had never experienced any trouble with his neck, left shoulder or arm; that since this injury he must daily use a halter for traction on his neck to relieve pain; that the arm pains him when he uses it for even a brief period of time; and that as a result thereof he is wholly unable to follow any gainful occupation. It is true that his complaints are now largely subjective, but no doctor claims the limitations of body movement or pains with which he suffers are simulated. Dr. Swenson, one of the consultants, on being examined at the second hearing as to the possibility of future improvement in petitioner's condition, stated in effect that all reasonable medical care had been given to relieve this condition, that the chances of significant improvement are very slight, *283 and that it was probable the condition could become more aggravated. Dr. Ergenbright confirmed each of these conclusions. Considering the overall picture, the following testimony seems quite significant: In the light of this record it is interesting to observe how the doctors and the Commission rationalized that the injury could be evaluated percentage-wise in the functional loss of use of an arm. Dr. Ergenbright testified, in effect, that medically speaking the shoulder was a part of the arm and that in rating this injury as a 15% loss of function to left arm, it was a mathematical functional evaluation limited solely to medical factors. Counsel for the Commission state this to be their position: In effect its position seems to be that it may rely upon the conclusions of the medical consultants that the injury in question "is equivalent to approximately a 15% functional loss of the left arm", and that its ruling based upon this "competent evidence" cannot now be overthrown. This precise contention has been made in another Arizona case, Tashner v. Industrial Commission, 62 Ariz. 333, 157 P.2d 608, 609, wherein an award denying further compensation was set aside. In that case the medical advisory board's conclusion was: Based on this opinion the Commission stopped compensation. We held there was no support in the record for the medical conclusions above stated and therefore no reasonable evidence in support of the Commission's findings. It was there aptly stated: Thus in the instant case, the Commission cannot accept the medical conclusions as to the resulting functional loss to the left arm as determinative that the only disability herein was an arm injury, within the scheduled disabilities, nor can this court accept same, where as here such conclusions are unsupported by the facts and medical history. There being no conflict in the medical evidence upon which the Commission relies, we believe it can be held as a matter of law in the instant case that petitioner suffered multiple injuries with a residue of disability, rather than "one injury resulting in multiple conditions" as contended by respondent. Merely by way of illustration the record shows: (a) petitioner had *285 some osteo-arthritic degenerative changes in the cervical spine due to age, which prior to the accident were in no manner disabling. The accident was the trigger or precipitating factor which aggravated the condition, inflaming and irritating it, which has contributed to the disabling pain in the cervical region of C-5 and C-6 bilaterally, and (b) admittedly petitioner also sustained injuries to the nerve roots in the cervical spine which are a part of the central nervous system, and these impinged nerves resulted in a stiff neck with considerable limitation of motion as well as causing periodic headaches. Certainly these are not injuries to the arm. As a matter of fact there was no injury to the arm per se, and as heretofore stated with all of the treatments petitioner received no doctor "ever treated the arm as an arm." The situation before us, as we see it, is not that of a specific scheduled injury from which has flowed other allegedly disabling results, of Annotation Workmen's Compensation Disability, 156 A.L.R. 1344. Rather it is one wherein multiple disabling injuries have been categorized as one scheduled injury (15% loss of use of the arm) and thus treated as but a disability of the arm. The legal problem presented is whether the record sustains such a conclusion. We think it does not. The case of Bumpus v. Massman Const. Co., Mo. App., 145 S.W.2d 458, 461, is practically "on all fours" with the instant case. There the employee was injured when the rung of a ladder broke beneath him and he caught hold of another rung to save himself from a fall. After treatment to the neck and shoulder there still existed pain and limitation of use. In determining the amount of compensation the Commission chose to regard the injury as though it bore a relation to the loss of the minor arm at the shoulder, rather than an unscheduled injury. The court rejected this theory, however, saying: The evidence in that case indicates to us that the Missouri court was dealing with a situation closely akin to the one here presented. Its analysis thereof is highly persuasive. See also, Sammis v. Queens Borough Gas &amp; Electric Co., 257 App.Div. 58, 12 N.Y.S.2d 286. *286 It should be noted that petitioner is not asking to be compensated for a scheduled injury to his arm and in addition thereto to be compensated for his "loss of earning" capacity, such as was denied in Williams v. Industrial Commission of Arizona, 73 Ariz. 57, 237 P.2d 471, and Engle v. Industrial Commission, 77 Ariz. 202, 269 P.2d 604. Rather, petitioner is seeking to be compensated by having his percentage of disability determined as a basis for fixing his loss of earning power as an unscheduled injury. It appears to us the award made was most unrealistic and not in keeping with either the letter or spirit of the workmen's compensation law. The purported findings and conclusions of the Commission are based upon a false premise, and as they are not sustained by the evidence they are not binding upon us. The petitioner having suffered multiple injuries which have not healed, we hold the residue of such injuries cannot now be compounded and compensated as a "scheduled injury" to the arm. The Commission therefore erred in not treating this as a case falling under the "odd lot" or nonscheduled injuries which are compensable under subdivision C of Section 23-1044, A.R.S. 1956. Award set aside. LA PRADE, C.J., and WINDES, PHELPS and STRUCKMEYER, JJ., concur.