Opinion ID: 2264940
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: The statutes require separate awards

Text: As noted above, the Board has employed, and the Court of Appeals has affirmed, different methods for calculating permanent partial disability awards. The Board uses one hereassigning separate awards for each injury to a scheduled member. A Court of Appeals panel recently affirmed this method in Conrow v. Globe Engineering Co., No. 99,718, 2009 WL 744086, unpublished opinion filed March 13, 2009. Another method the Board utilized combined multiple injuries to the same extremity to the highest level of injury on that extremity. A different Court of Appeals panel approved this approach in Mitchell v. Petsmart, Inc., 41 Kan.App.2d 523, 203 P.3d 76 (2009), rev. granted 289 Kan. 1279 (2009). We announce a decision in that case this same day and reverse the Mitchell panel's decision on this point. Mitchell v. Petsmart, ___ Kan. ___, 239 P.3d 51 (2010). In Redd's case, the Mitchell court's approach would result in two permanent partial disability awardsone for Redd's left upper extremity and one for Redd's right upper extremity. But neither of these two conflicting methodologies used by the Board involves a whole body impairment calculation, which is a third approach and the one advocated by Kansas Truck Center in this appeal. Accordingly, we must determine which method is correct under K.S.A. 44-510d in this case. A review of the governing statutes, the case law interpreting those statutes, the Guides, and the legislative history for K.S.A. 44-510d(a)(23) is required. We will follow those reviews with an analysis to resolve the question.
An overview of the Workers Compensation Act places the issue in context. In Casco v. Armour Swift-Eckrich, 283 Kan. 508, 522, 154 P.3d 494 (2007), this court explained: The Workers Compensation Act calculates compensation differently depending on the nature of the disability. K.S.A. 44-510c provides compensation for temporary and permanent total disabilities. K.S.A. 44-510d and 44-510e provide compensation for permanent partial disabilities. K.S.A. 44-510d calculates the award based on a schedule of disabilities. If an injury is on the schedule, the amount of compensation in the schedule includes compensation for the complete loss of the member or the partial loss of the member. K.S.A. 44-510d(a)(21). The compensation for a scheduled disability is based on the schedule alone without regard to the claimant's loss in earning power. [Citation omitted.] K.S.A. 44-510e, on the other hand, calculates the award for any injury not included on the schedule. Kansas Truck Center's challenge solely pertains to the permanent partial disability calculation. Both K.S.A. 44-510d and K.S.A. 44-510e are relevant. The Board's scheduled injury calculation was made under K.S.A. 44-510d, but Kansas Truck Center's approach would require compensation as if Redd suffered a general disability under K.S.A. 44-510e because whole body impairments are not scheduled injuries. K.S.A. 44-510d(a) provides in part that permanent partial disability compensation is to be paid for not to exceed the number of weeks allowed in the following schedule: (11) For the loss of a hand, 150 weeks (12) For the loss of a forearm, 200 weeks (13) For the loss of an arm, excluding the shoulder joint, shoulder girdle, shoulder musculature or any other shoulder structures, 210 weeks . . . . (21) . . . For the permanent partial loss of use of a . . . hand . . . arm . . . shall be paid as provided for in K.S.A. 44-510c . . . per week during that proportion of the number of weeks in the foregoing schedule provided for the loss of such . . . hand, [arm, or shoulder], which partial loss thereof bears to the total loss of a . . . hand, [arm, or shoulder] . . .; but in no event shall the compensation payable hereunder for such partial loss exceed the compensation payable under the schedule for the total loss of such . . . hand, arm, [or shoulder] . . ., exclusive of the healing period. . . . . (23) Loss of a scheduled member shall be based upon permanent impairment of function to the scheduled member as determined using the fourth edition of the American Medical Association Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, if the impairment is contained therein. K.S.A. 44-510e defines permanent partial general disability as a disability, partial in character and permanent in quality, which the K.S.A. 44-510d schedule does not cover. It then establishes a unique method for calculating general disabilities that considers wage loss. That particular methodology is not relevant to this appeal, but it should be noted that general disabilities tend to result in higher awards. Pruter v. Larned State Hospital, 271 Kan. 865, 869, 26 P.3d 666 (2001). Kansas Truck Center predicates much of its advocacy for a whole body impairment on the language in K.S.A. 44-510(d)(a)(23), which requires loss of a scheduled member be based upon the permanent impairment of function to the scheduled member as determined using the Guides. Accordingly, it is appropriate to next consider those Guides in the applicable context for this case.
This court has not examined the Guides or the meaning of their adoption in K.S.A. 44-510d(a)(23). According to the foreword, the Guides' stated purpose is `to bring greater objectivity to estimating the degree of long-standing or permanent impairments.' Guides, p. v. This is accomplished by performing medical evaluations in accordance with the directions in the Guides. Guides § 1.2, p. 3. The first step under the Guides is assessment or evaluation. This requires a documented medical evaluation and review of a patient's case history. The Guides contain chapters on each organ system, and each chapter contains descriptions on ways to evaluate the body part, function, or system. Guides § 1.2, p. 3. The Guides' methods for evaluating impairments to the upper extremities are outlined in Chapter 3, relating to the musculoskeletal system. The hand and upper extremity sections cover the thumb, finger, wrist, elbow, and shoulder regions. Guides §§ 3.1a-3.1o, pp. 15-74. The second step requires combining impairments. The Guides instruct physicians to combine impairments to the same member and then convert that impairment to the next larger unit. For example, multiple injuries to the same thumb are combined. Then, the total thumb impairment is converted to a hand or regional impairment. All regional impairments, i.e., hand, wrist, and shoulder, are combined to generate a total impairment to the upper extremity. Ultimately, this upper extremity calculation is converted into a whole body impairment. Guides §§ 3.1e, 3.1n, pp. 24, 65. These calculations are performed whether it is a single injury, i.e., impairment to one hand, or multiple injuries, i.e., impairment to the hand and shoulder. Guides § 3.1o, pp. 66-74. Guides § 3.1e, p. 24, entitled Combining Impairment Values, demonstrates how to combine impairments for the same member, i.e., one finger with two impairments, and how to combine multiple regional impairments, i.e., the hand, wrist, and shoulder. It states: When there is more than one impairment of a member, such as abnormal motion, sensory loss, and amputation of a finger, the impairments must be combined before the conversion to the next larger unit, in this case the hand, is made. The method for combining impairments is based on the idea that a second or a succeeding impairment should apply not to the whole, but only to the part that remains after the first and other impairments have been applied. . . . The Combined Values Chart on p. 322 may be used to determine the combined value of two impairment percents or, in succession, any number of impairment percents. . . . . Multiple regional impairments, as with those of the hand, wrist, elbow, and shoulder, are expressed in terms of impairment of the upper extremity and are combined using the Combined Values Chart. The Chart is used also to combine impairments of two or more organ systems and express these as a whole-person impairment. Guides § 3.1n, p. 65, entitled Combining Regional Impairments to Obtain Impairment of the Whole Person, instructs a physician to combine regional impairments, i.e., hand, wrist, or shoulder, into a whole body impairment. The first step is to covert these impairments into a value for the upper extremity. Then, the Guides § 3.1n, p. 65, convert the upper extremity impairment into a whole body impairment, stating: 1. Determine the impairments of each region (hand, wrist, elbow, and shoulder joints) as described in preceding sections. 2. Use the Combined Values Chart (p. 322) to combine impairments to the upper extremity contributed by each region. . . . . 3. Use Table 3 (p. 20) to convert impairment of the upper extremity to impairment of the whole person. Guides § 3.1o, pp. 66-74, entitled Summary of Steps for Evaluating Impairments of the Upper Extremity, provides instructions for calculating upper extremity awards and combining them into whole body impairments. This summary instructs physicians to convert a singular injury into a regional impairment and then a whole body impairment, even if there are no other injuries. This is demonstrated by the Guides § 3.1o (I. Hand Region), p. 66, pertaining to calculating a hand impairment, which states: G. Total hand impairment: add the hand impairment values related to the involved digits. H. Convert hand impairment to upper extremity impairment. (Table 2, p. 19) . . . . K. If no other upper extremity impairment exists, convert the upper extremity impairment related to the hand region to a whole-person impairment (Table 3, p. 20). These instructions also are included at the bottom of Figure 1, which is titled Upper Extremity Impairment Evaluation Record. Guides § 3.1a, p. 16. As is easily seen from the above description, Kansas Truck Center is correct that the Guides contemplate converting a worker's injury into a whole body impairment. But that does not resolve the inquiry. We next consider Kansas Truck Center's claim in light of the consideration given to the Guides by the legislature when it included reference to them in the statutes.
In evaluating Kansas Truck Center's argument, it is necessary to look more closely at K.S.A. 44-510d(a)(23), which references the Guides. This provision was added to the statute in 1993 and modified in 1996. L.1993, ch. 286, sec. 33; L.1996, ch. 79, sec. 23. But the only meaningful change in 1996 was adopting the fourth edition of the Guides instead of the third edition. L.1996, ch. 79, sec. 23. The 1993 amendment was part of a massive workers compensation revision effort. This court described the endeavor when it reviewed the changes: At the start of the 1993 legislative session, legislators had before them the reports of the Governor's Task Force on Workers Compensation, the Insurance Commissioner's Workers Compensation Task Force, and the Legislative Post Audit Committee, all of which suggested areas of the workers compensation system that the various committees determined needed reform. Over the course of the session, the House Committee on Labor and Industry and the Senate Committee on Commerce conducted hearings and heard from witnesses representing employees, employers, trial lawyers, labor organizations, and business associations. S.B. 307, which dealt with safety issues, was used as the vehicle for workers compensation reform. The legislation passed unanimously in both the House and Senate, and Governor Finney signed the bill into law. Injured Workers of Kansas v. Franklin, 262 Kan. 840, 842, 942 P.2d 591 (1997). Dr. Phillip L. Baker's testimony before a legislative committee provides some insight for our present purposes into issues the legislature considered regarding the Guides. Dr. Baker was asked to give his opinion on whether physicians could rate and schedule shoulder or girdle problems at that area, as provided in Sec. 23 of SB 215, rather than body of the whole. (Emphasis added.) Minutes, Sen. Comm. on Commerce, February 10, 1993. Dr. Baker gave this response: `[T]he answer is yes, because that is the way we do it anyway. The only reason they are converted to whole body is because the system asks us to do that, and it has been that way as long as I can remember. In fact, it was hard to learn to do that. . . .' There is now a table in the AMA guidelines for impairment that [converts to a whole body impairment]. You just look up the percent that you have given to the upper extremity for the shoulder and go down the table until you find that number and there is a schedule that does that. . . . But it's not a medical issue, it's a book logistic issue that has little relationship to the body and how it functions and what this person may be doing. Minutes, Sen. Comm. on Commerce, February 10, 1993. The committee's question at least impliedly suggests it did not mean for this provision to adopt the Guides' requirements to convert all injuries into whole body impairments. The doctor's answer also shows there is not a medical reason for combining the impairments, which means that refusing to adopt Kansas Truck Center's argument does not affect the impairment ratings' accuracy.
As noted above, even though Kansas Truck Center is correct that the Guides require combining impairments into whole body injuries, it still fails to address whether adopting this approach is consistent with the other provisions in the Workers Compensation Act. As Kansas Truck Center conceded at oral argument, if the Guides are followed literally, all impairments would be calculated as whole body injuries and compensated under K.S.A. 44-510e. This interpretation would render the scheduled injury provisions in K.S.A. 44-510d(a)(1)-(22) meaningless because a claimant would never be awarded benefits based on a scheduled injury. This court previously addressed whether certain scheduled injuries can be converted into a whole body impairment given the scheduled injury provisions set out in the law. In Casco, the injured worker suffered a repetitive use injury to his left shoulder and subsequently injured his right shoulder as a natural consequence of the first injury. The issue on appeal was whether injuries to parallel limbs should be calculated separately as scheduled injuries or combined and calculated as a general body disability under K.S.A. 44-510e. The Casco court emphasized scheduled injuries were the general rule and general disabilities the exception, holding the awards at issue must be calculated as scheduled injuries in accordance with K.S.A. 44-510d. 283 Kan. at 528, 154 P.3d 494. In doing so, this court overruled Honn v. Elliott, 132 Kan. 454, 295 P. 719 (1931), which had allowed multiple scheduled injuries to be combined into whole body impairments. 283 Kan. at 527, 154 P.3d 494 (citing and discussing Pruter, 271 Kan. at 873-76, 26 P.3d 666). Admittedly, Casco did not address the K.S.A. 44-510d(a)(23) reference to the Guides, but Kansas Truck Center's argument that Redd's award should be converted into a whole body impairment would require us to overrule Casco. To avoid this problem, Kansas Truck Center attempts to distinguish Casco by arguing its holding only applies to bilateral injuries, not separate injuries to the same extremity as Redd suffered. But this ignores the Casco decision's core, which definitively held that scheduled injuries are the general rule and that the statutory structure comprising the Workers Compensation Act does not permit combining scheduled injuries into a whole body impairment. 283 Kan. at 528-29, 154 P.3d 494. In addition, if the plain reading of a statute yields an ambiguity or a lack of clarity, the rules of statutory construction are used to resolve the ambiguity. This requires moving outside the text of the provision and examining evidence of legislative intent, legislative history, or employing the additional canons of statutory construction to determine the legislature's meaning. Higgins, 288 Kan. at 362, 204 P.3d 1156. The legislative history, as discussed above, is consistent with Casco 's aversion to whole body impairment when there is a specific statutory schedule. Appellate courts also must consider various provisions of an act in pari materia to reconcile and bring the provisions into workable harmony if possible. State v. Breedlove, 285 Kan. 1006, 1015, 179 P.3d 1115 (2008). If they cannot be resolved, a fundamental rule of statutory construction is [w]hen there is a conflict between a statute dealing generally with a subject and another statute dealing specifically with a certain phase of it, the specific statute controls unless it appears that the legislature intended to make the general act controlling. [Citations omitted.] Matjasich v. Kansas Dept. of Human Resources, 271 Kan. 246, 251, 21 P.3d 985 (2001). Applying the rules of statutory interpretation, the provision referencing the Guides in K.S.A. 44-510d(a)(23) must be read in a way that does not render the statutory schedule in K.S.A. 44-510d extraneous, if possible. See State v. Trautloff, 289 Kan. 793, 797, 217 P.3d 15 (2009) (As a general rule, courts should read statutes to avoid unreasonable results and should presume that the legislature does not intend to enact useless or meaningless legislation.). But if the entire instructions contained in the Guides are to be applied to create a whole body impairment for every injury to a worker, as Kansas Truck Center argues they should be, the statute's scheduled injury sections in K.S.A. 44-510d(a)(1)-(22) become meaningless. Statutory construction rules do not favor this result. As discussed above, the Guides were designed to increase objectivity and uniformity when estimating impairments. Dr. Baker's comments suggest the Guides' conversions into regional and whole body impairments were added simply to help physicians comply with their particular state's workers compensation requirements when applicable. But since the Kansas Legislature created its own mechanism to calculate permanent partial disability awards in K.S.A. 44-510d and K.S.A. 44-510e, the more reasonable interpretation for K.S.A. 44-510d(a)(23) is that the legislature meant to adopt the evaluation requirements but not the instructions to combine and convert the injuries into whole body impairments. This view maintains the Guides' purpose of bringing greater objectivity to the physician's task of estimating the magnitude of permanent impairments, while allowing for the scheduled injury calculations specified in the statute. This interpretation also is consistent with another statutory interpretation rule that the more specific statute should govern if the statutes cannot be reconciled. In re Roth, 269 Kan. 399, 403, 7 P.3d 241 (2000) ([W]here a conflict between general and specific statutes exists, the specific statute will prevail unless it appears that the legislature meant to make the general statute controlling.). The scheduled injury provisions in K.S.A. 44-510d(a)(1)-(22) deal specifically with how a permanent partial disability award should be calculated, while the Guides are a general instruction manual developed to help physicians across the nation calculate impairments for claimants without specific reference to a particular state's statutory scheme for providing benefits to injured workers. K.S.A. 44-510d(a)(23) is the more general provision in the statute. We conclude the Guides should not control over the more specific statutory schedule. We hold this statutory analysis and our rationale in Casco demonstrate Redd's impairments should not be combined into whole body impairments. But this conclusion does not end our inquiry. As discussed above, the Board used a different method of calculation in Mitchell. This variation in Mitchell stopped short of combining multiple injuries to single extremities into a whole body impairment. We must determine whether that alternative method is proper before ruling how Redd's award should be calculated. The employee in Mitchell also suffered multiple injuries like Redd. The Board determined Mitchell suffered repetitive trauma, developing bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, right elbow symptoms, and bilateral shoulder injuries. The Board then combined these impairment ratings at the level of each shoulder, resulting in a 24.5 percent impairment to the right upper extremity and a 8 percent impairment to the left upper extremity. Two board members dissented, arguing Mitchell's injuries needed to be compensated on the schedule at the level corresponding to that injury. The dissenters argued for separate calculations, which was the approach the Board majority used for Redd. The Mitchell panel interpreted K.S.A. 44-510d to allow compensation at the highest level of the injury when multiple injuries occur within a single extremity. First, it distinguished its calculations from those found improper in Casco by noting the Board did not convert Mitchell's injuries into a whole body impairment thereby requiring compensation under the general disability statute, K.S.A. 44-510e. Then, it noted the statutory structure of the scheduled injuries was progressive, meaning an injured worker is entitled to more weeks if the injury occurs at a higher level, i.e., 200 weeks for a forearm, but 210 weeks for the loss of an arm. The panel quoted Casco, 283 Kan. at 522, 154 P.3d 494, stating that `[i]f an injury is on the schedule, the amount of compensation in the schedule includes compensation for the complete loss of the member or the partial loss of the member,' but the panel then stated that where only a partial loss occurs, the number of weeks is reduced by the percentage of the loss and, thus, the principle of compensating an extremity at the highest level affected applies regardless of whether the loss is total or partial. Mitchell, 41 Kan.App.2d at 537, 203 P.3d 76. Admittedly, this approach does not render the statutory schedule meaningless, but it does read something into provisions of K.S.A. 44-510d(a)(1)-(22) that does not exist. The schedule does not contain any language requiring the combination of scheduled injuries, and the Mitchell panel did not explain where it found the authority to justify the way in which the Board combined Mitchell's injuries. Using the statutory construction analysis recited above, we hold the best way to reconcile K.S.A. 44-510d(a)(23) with the statutory schedule is to use the Guides as a mechanism to evaluate impairment at the level of the injury and to not apply its provisions that call for combining injuries first into regional, and then whole body, impairments. As such, separate awards should be provided at each injury level. The Board majority correctly calculated Redd's award.