Opinion ID: 1642211
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Adequacy of Award

Text: In determining whether the evidence is sufficient to support an award by the compensation court, the evidence must be considered in the light most favorable to the successful party. The findings of fact made by the compensation court after rehearing will not be set aside unless clearly wrong. Brazee v. City of Lincoln, 234 Neb. 680, 452 N.W.2d 529 (1990); Briggs v. Consolidated Freight-ways, 234 Neb. 410, 451 N.W.2d 278 (1990); Behrens v. American Stores Packing Co., 234 Neb. 25, 449 N.W.2d 197 (1989). See, also, Neb.Rev. Stat. § 48-185 (Reissue 1988). The plaintiff first contends that he is entitled to compensation for an injury to the body as a whole, rather than for partial loss of use of his right arm. Under Neb.Rev.Stat. § 48-121 (Reissue 1988), impairments to the body as a whole are compensated in terms of loss of earning power or capacity, but impairments of scheduled members are compensated on the basis of loss of physical function. Nordby v. Gould, Inc., 213 Neb. 372, 329 N.W.2d 118 (1983); Snyder I, supra. The test for determining whether a disability is to a scheduled member or to the body as a whole is the location of the residual impairment, not the situs of the injury. Nordby v. Gould, Inc., supra ; Jeffers v. Pappas Trucking, Inc., 198 Neb. 379, 253 N.W.2d 30 (1977). In support of his contention that he suffered an injury to the body as a whole, the plaintiff emphasizes certain testimony relating to headaches, neck pain, and the proximity of the situs of the injury to the trunk of the body. Considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the successful party, however, the record supports the finding of the compensation court that the location of the residual impairment was the plaintiff's right upper extremity. Dr. Dougherty, the defendant's expert witness, examined the plaintiff in January 1984 and again on February 19, 1987. Dr. Dougherty was of the opinion that the plaintiff suffered a 10- to 15-percent permanent partial disability of the right upper extremity, involving the use of the arm and shoulder. Dr. Dougherty testified that the plaintiff had no disability related to the trunk of the body and that the plaintiff's disability was limited to the use of his right arm. The plaintiff's treating physician, Dr. Mumford, testified that although he could extrapolate the shoulder injury to the body as a whole, he did not have any opinion about trunk involvement. Noting that the collarbone and shoulder blade attach to the trunk of the body, Dr. Mumford stated, It would be a semantic deal as to whether they are part of the body or part of the shoulder or part of the arm. Dr. Mumford also testified that as a result of the shoulder injury, the plaintiff cannot use his arm. The record supports the finding that the plaintiff's injury is permanent in nature. We have said that when a worker has reached maximum recovery, the remaining disability is permanent. Gardner v. Beatrice Foods Co., 231 Neb. 464, 436 N.W.2d 542 (1989); Aldrich v. ASARCO, Inc., 221 Neb. 126, 375 N.W.2d 150 (1985). On this point, the plaintiff testified that he had never recovered from the shoulder injury of December 27, 1983, and that the shoulder had gotten worse. Arthroscopic surgery in April 1984 and February 1986 did not alleviate the plaintiff's discomfort. Both physicians stated that the plaintiff's shoulder had degenerated. Dr. Mumford testified that the plaintiff's condition would not improve and might get worse and that it was questionable whether the plaintiff would benefit from another surgical procedure. The next issue to be considered is the degree of disability found by the compensation court. As stated above, Dr. Dougherty's opinion was that the plaintiff suffered a 10- to 15-percent permanent partial disability of the right upper extremity. Dr. Mumford assessed the plaintiff's level of impairment at 30 percent disability of the shoulder on July 5, 1985; 15 percent on December 13, 1985; and 15 percent on January 8, 1986. On April 29, 1987, Dr. Mumford testified that the plaintiff suffered a total of 25 percent permanent partial disability to the right upper extremity. The record contains subsequent correspondence from Dr. Mumford stating that the disability of the plaintiff's upper extremity had increased an additional 5 percent, and that the disability was due to the accident of December 27, 1983. The record also contains evidence that the plaintiff's muscles had not atrophied, that he had suffered no nerve damage, and that he was using the arm. Where the evidence is in conflict, the compensation court may find a percentage of disability within the range of the testimony. Mulder v. Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co., 219 Neb. 241, 361 N.W.2d 572 (1985). Section 48-121(3) provides that for disability resulting from permanent schedule injuries, the compensation shall be in addition to the amount paid for temporary disability.... The findings by the compensation court that the plaintiff suffered a 10-percent permanent loss of the use of his right arm and that the plaintiff suffered an increase in incapacity are not clearly wrong. The plaintiff's assignment of error is without merit.