Opinion ID: 2221558
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: permanent total disability claim

Text: ¶ 54. The second issue concerns the interpretation of Wis. Stat. § 102.44(2). This statute grants lifetime benefits to workers who are totally and permanently disabled. Mireles seeks benefits under § 102.44(2) based upon a combination of scheduled and unscheduled injuries. Ametek argues that an unscheduled injury may not be combined with a scheduled injury under this section because scheduled injuries are covered exclusively under three other sections of the Act. ¶ 55. As with the first issue, we conclude that we give LIRC's interpretation only due weight. The plain language of Wis. Stat. § 102.44(2), when considered in concert with all of § 102.44 and other statutes referred to in the text of § 102.44, dictates that Mireles may qualify for total permanent disability benefits. Furthermore, LIRC's memorandum opinion did not develop significant reasoning about this claim [12] and LIRC took a contrary position in another case, Langhus, 206 Wis. 2d 494. ¶ 56. Wisconsin Stat. § 102.44(2) must be read in context. Wisconsin Stat. § 102.43, titled Weekly Compensation Schedule, sets forth instructions about the payment of benefits. The section covers total, partial, temporary, and permanent disabilities. ¶ 57. Wisconsin Stat. § 102.44 modifies the immediately preceding section with limitations. Subsection (2) of § 102.44 provides: In case of permanent total disability aggregate indemnity shall be weekly indemnity for the period that the employe may live. Total impairment for industrial use of both eyes, or the loss of both arms at or near the shoulder, or of both legs at or near the hip, or of one arm at the shoulder and one leg at the hip, constitutes permanent total disability. This enumeration is not exclusive, but in other cases the department shall find the facts. ¶ 58. Subsection (2) governs the permanent total disability indemnity. The subsection lists several combinations of scheduled injuries that constitute permanent total disability. The text concludes: This enumeration is not exclusive, but in other cases the department shall find the facts. Wis. Stat. § 102.44(2). ¶ 59. The question we must decide is whether the other cases of permanent total disability may include a combination of scheduled and unscheduled injuries. Ametek contends that the combination of scheduled and unscheduled injuries suffered by Mireles may not give rise to a claim under Wis. Stat. § 102.44(2). Ametek bases its position on Langhus, 206 Wis. 2d at 505-06, which discussed the exclusionary reach of Wis. Stat. § 102.44(4). Section 102.44(4) states that [w]here the permanent disability is covered by ss. 102.52, 102.53, and 102.55, such sections shall govern. ¶ 60. Wisconsin Stat. §§ 102.52, 102.53, and 102.55 must be examined in turn. Section 102.52 is the Permanent partial disability schedule. [13] This schedule contains the full list of scheduled injuries. Mireles's claim for permanent total disability is not covered by § 102.52 because one of her injuriesher back injuryis not part of the schedule. ¶ 61. Section 102.53 relates to Multiple injury variations. Its introductory clause begins: In case an injury causes more than one permanent disability specified in ss. 102.44(3), 102.52, and 102.55. Referenced sections 102.52 and 102.55 deal exclusively with scheduled injuries and combinations of scheduled injuries. Section 102.44(3) pertains to permanent partial disability. Because Mireles's claim is for permanent total disability, not permanent partial disability, Wis. Stat. § 102.44(3) does not apply. Mireles's claim for permanent total disability is not covered by § 102.53. ¶ 62. Section 102.55, Application of schedules, refers back to § 102.52 and speaks to injuries specified in this schedule. Thus, § 102.55 does not cover Mireles's permanent total disability claim. ¶ 63. We conclude that Wis. Stat. §§ 102.52, 102.53, and 102.55 do not cover a claim for permanent total disability based on a combination of scheduled and unscheduled injuries. In Langhus, the court of appeals reached the same conclusion when it observed: We note that LIRC's interpretation does not preclude a claimant who can prove total disability, stemming from both scheduled and unscheduled injuries, from receiving lifetime benefits. Section 102.44(2), Stats., specifically provides that certain combinations of scheduled injuries are deemed to constitute permanent total disability. In other situations, DWD is directed to find the facts. There is no reason, therefore, that a claimant with both scheduled and unscheduled injuries could not establish facts that would allow LIRC to award benefits for permanent total disability under § 102.44(2). The burden of making that showing, however, rests on the claimant. Langhus, 206 Wis. 2d at 505 n.9. ¶ 64. This conclusion is not undermined by two previous decisions, Mednicoff, 54 Wis. 2d 7, and Vande Zande, 70 Wis. 2d 1086. In Mednicoff, this court confronted the issue of whether scheduled injuries could form the basis for a loss of earning capacity claim. Mednicoff, 54 Wis. 2d at 14. The applicant in Mednicoff suffered from a permanent partial disability, based on a combination of scheduled injuries. Id. at 11. She claimed agency error because the trier of fact did not consider her claim for loss of earning capacity. Id. at 11-12. This court determined that the applicant could not receive compensation for loss of earning capacity because loss of earning capacity is inherent for injuries in the schedule. Id. at 12. The court found that only the specific enumerated combinations of scheduled injuries qualified under Wis. Stat. § 102.44(2) and that all other cases of multiple scheduled or relative injuries are to be compensated according to the provisions of § 102.53. Id. at 14. The court's holding did not preclude a combination of scheduled and unscheduled injuries constituting permanent total disability. ¶ 65. Vande Zande, 70 Wis. 2d at 1086, was another case involving multiple injuries amounting to a permanent partial disability. The applicant sustained a skull fracture, loss of sense of taste and smell, facial paralysis, intermittent headaches, dizziness, and vertigo, and 100 percent loss of hearing in his left ear. Id. at 1091. The agency awarded the applicant 20 percent permanent partial disability and a scheduled award for deafness of 55 weeks. Id. at 1091-92. The applicant contended that the deafness caused the other symptoms and that he deserved an award of 40 percent permanent partial disability. Id. at 1091. He asserted that the schedule should not apply to his case. Id. at 1091. We disagreed and ruled that the administrative agency correctly applied the schedule to the applicant's situation. Vande Zande, 70 Wis. 2d at 1093. ¶ 66. Both Mednicoff and Vande Zande affirm the explicit language of Wis. Stat. § 102.44(4) that where the permanent disability is covered by Wis. Stat. §§ 102.52, 102.53, and 102.55, such sections shall govern. Wis. Stat. § 102.44(4). Moreover, in no case shall the percentage of permanent total disability be taken as more than 100 percent. Id. Nonetheless, these cases do not control a claim of permanent total disability not covered by the three sections. ¶ 67. Langhus makes the point that eligibility to make a claim and proof of a claim are different. In Langhus, the applicant claimed permanent total disability. Langhus injured his knee at work, Langhus, 206 Wis. 2d at 497, an injury governed by the schedule. Wis. Stat. § 102.52. Later, Langhus reinjured his knee and shoulder outside of work. Id. Langhus subsequently developed an unscheduled back injury as a result of a limp from the knee injury. Id. Langhus claimed he suffered total and permanent disability as a result of the back, leg, and shoulder injuries. Id. ¶ 68. LIRC denied Langhus's claim for permanent total disability benefits because he did not demonstrate what portion of his disability could be attributed to his back injury. Id. at 506. According to the court of appeals, LIRC did not contend that Langhus could not qualify for permanent total disability benefits under Wis. Stat. § 102.44(2). Id. at 505-06. The court of appeals found that LIRC's interpretation [did] not preclude a claimant who can prove total disability, stemming from both scheduled and unscheduled injuries, from receiving lifetime benefits [under Wis. Stat. § 102.44(2)]. Langhus, 206 Wis. 2d at 505 n.9. Presumably, LIRC wanted Langhus to show that his disability was caused in part by an unscheduled injury, so that compensation for loss of earning capacity was not awarded for an injury caused either significantly or wholly by a scheduled injury. Id. at 505-06. LIRC did not exceed its authority in placing the burden on Langhus to prove that an ascertainable portion of his total disability was attributable to other than a scheduled injury. [14] Id. at 506. ¶ 69. Our holding today does not affect the absolute exclusiveness of scheduled benefits in cases of permanent partial disability. See Langhus, 206 Wis. 2d at 505; Vande Zande, 70 Wis. 2d at 1093; Mednicoff, 54 Wis. 2d at 14. This includes the apportionment guidelines for permanent partial disability cases from Vande Zande, 70 Wis. 2d at 1091-93, and Hagen v. LIRC, 210 Wis. 2d 12, 23, 563 N.W.2d 454 (1997). An injured worker with a permanent partial disability attributable to both a scheduled and unscheduled injury still will be unable to recover beyond the schedule limits for that portion of the disability attributable to the scheduled injury. Hagen, 210 Wis. 2d at 23. ¶ 70. Our interpretation of Wis. Stat. § 102.44(6)(b) and 102.44(2) does not guarantee Mireles or any applicant additional benefits. Our interpretation merely permits applicants in the unusual circumstances here to state claims that the department may consider and that the applicants must prove. Ultimately, the department finds the facts.