Opinion ID: 1060369
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Designation of Impairment to the Body as a Whole

Text: The first issue presented by the parties concerns the trial court’s finding of a disability to the body as a whole. Travelers contends that Seal’s injuries were limited to a scheduled member, and therefore, it was error to apportion compensation to the body as a whole. Seal responds that the injury extended beyond the scheduled member and that the trial court’s decision, accordingly, should 3 Under the Workers’ Compensation Act, the insurance carrier generally is considered equivalent to the employer, so that an injured em ployee typically may elect to sue either the employer, the insurance carrier, or both parties when bringing an ac tion for w orkers’ com pensation b enefits. See generally Tenn. Cod e Ann. § 50-6-102(11 ) (1999). -4- be affirmed. Under the evidence presented in this case, we find that the disability is appropriately limited to a scheduled member. It is uncontested that the initial injury occurred to the heel of Seal’s right foot, a scheduled member. In order to support an award for permanent disability to the body as a whole, it must be shown that the effects of the scheduled member injury extend to an unscheduled portion of the body. See Wells v. Sentry Ins. Co., 834 S.W.2d 935, 938 (Tenn. 1992); Thompson v. Leon Russell Enters., 834 S.W.2d 927, 928 (Tenn. 1992). Although the evidence shows that Seal suffered from atrophy to his calf as a result of his foot injury, this alone would not satisfy the requirement of effects extending to unscheduled parts of the body because the leg also is a scheduled member. Additionally, our cases have historically treated an injury to the leg and foot, as an injury to one scheduled member, the leg. See e.g., Reagan v. Tennessee Municipal League, 751 S.W.2d 842, 843 (Tenn. 1988). No medical evidence of an injury to an unscheduled portion of the body is found in the record. Accordingly, the trial court’s designation of the impairment to the body as a whole must be modified. Furthermore, the evidence of Seal’s educational background, mental ability, and vocational background, in conjunction with the medical evidence that the fracture of the calcaneus will be a progressive injury severely limiting Seal’s ability to walk or stand, supports a finding that Seal has a 100% disability to his leg. The trial court’s award of workers’ compensation benefits based on the body as a whole is therefore modified to provide for an award based on 100% disability to the leg.