Opinion ID: 1881409
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Independent Injury.

Text: The whole man theory is that [w]here [an employee] has had a compensable disability, received his compensation and returned to work and then receives a subsequent independent injury which incapacitates him, the prior injury should not be deducted. Cabe v. Skeens, Ky., 422 S.W.2d 884, 885 (1967) (emphasis added). In such instances, the key word is `independent.' Young v. Young, Ky., 460 S.W.2d 832, 835 (1970). The rule is applied when the disability caused by the second injury is unrelated to and unaffected by the disability caused by the previous injury. The two leading Kentucky cases applying the whole man theory, International Harvester Co. v. Poff, Ky., 331 S.W.2d 712 (1959) and Schneider v. Putnam, Ky., 579 S.W.2d 370 (1979), are perfect examples of independent injuries. In Poff , the case that first adopted the whole man theory in Kentucky, a worker who had lost an eye in a previous work-related accident had been compensated therefor and returned to work. He then suffered a second accident requiring the amputation of both legs. It was held that the whole man theory precluded deducting the disability caused by the lost eye from the award for the disability caused by the amputations. Id. at 714-15. The two injuries were unrelated and incapacitated the worker in different ways; obviously, the disability resulting from the amputations was not affected by the lost eye. In Schneider , the worker had been almost blind since early childhood but, nevertheless, was working full-time when he was disabled by a work-related injury to his back. It was held that the disability resulting from his visual impairment should not be deducted from the award for the disability resulting from his back injury. Id. at 372. Again, the disability resulting from the back injury was not affected by the pre-existing visual impairment, and the whole man theory applied. Id. at 371. In contrast, the whole man theory was not applied in Young v. Kentucky Baptist Hospital, Ky., 483 S.W.2d 148 (1972), where the employee, having lost one eye during childhood, lost his other eye in a work-related accident resulting in total disability. Since the work-related accident would not have caused total disability except for the pre-existing impairment, it was held that KRS 342.120 required an exclusion reflecting the pre-existing disability. Id. at 150. Both injuries affected the worker's vision rather than, e.g., one affecting his vision and the other his back; therefore, the whole man theory was not applicable. If there had been no preexisting disability, [the plaintiff] would have had a good left eye and would not have sustained total disability. Id. Here, both the 1990 accident and the 1994 accident injured Nye's back and shoulders (primarily cervical spine area), and all of his present disability stems from the injuries of that area of his body. Since he had a prior active disability in the same area of his present disability, the subsequent injury was not independent of the previous injury and the whole man theory does not apply.