Opinion ID: 1153087
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: arguments and discussion of the law

Text: In its February 8, 1991 order, the Commission found that DeLaughter had suffered only minimal industrial incapacity, stating: The Commission thus finds that DeLaughter suffered a permanent partial impairment of four percent as a result of the injury of September 24, 1987. The Commission finds, however, that the claimant has not presented sufficient evidence that he has sustained more than a minimum loss of wage earning capacity as a result of the injury. The claimant apparently quit the job at South Central tractor parts because of pain when lifting heavy parts. But company policy dictated that no one lift more than forty pounds by himself. Dr. Azordegan assigned only a four percent disability and restrictions against excessive bending and heavy lifting of more than forty pounds. It further found that: Dr. Azordegan restricted DeLaughter to lifting no more than forty pounds. Company policy at South Central Tractor Parts dictates that no one lift more than forty pounds alone. The restrictions do not conflict with the job requirements. DeLaughter asserts that the Commission erred in so finding and in reducing his permanent partial disability benefits to $25.00 per week. He primarily contends that the Commission's findings are based on the erroneous proposition that South Central had a policy prohibiting any employee from lifting more than forty pounds without assistance. South Central skirts around the policy issue, maintaining that the Commission's findings are supported by substantial evidence. It further asserts that DeLaughter's job was always available to him and within the physical limits established by Dr. Azordegan. Both claimant and employer hotly dispute much of the evidence in this case: the extent of DeLaughter's incapacity; his ability to continue working after the accident; whether he quit or was fired; and the availability of medical benefits through his employer. In workers' compensation cases, the Commission is the ultimate finder of fact. Natchez Equipment Co., Inc. v. Gibbs, 623 So.2d 270, 273 (Miss. 1993); Walker Manufacturing Co. v. Cantrell, 577 So.2d 1243, 1246 (Miss. 1991); Hardin's Bakeries v. Dependent of Harrell, 566 So.2d 1261, 1264 (Miss. 1990). This Court generally will give great deference to the Commission's decision, regardless of the administrative judge's ruling. Lanterman v. Roadway Express, Inc., 608 So.2d 1340, 1345 (Miss. 1992). However, as the standards of review, supra, indicate, where the findings of the Commission are not supported by substantial evidence, we will not hesitate to reverse. It is apparent that the Commission based its decision largely on the premise that, although Dr. Azordegan restricted DeLaughter to lifting less than forty pounds, South Central had a policy requiring workers to seek assistance when lifting more than forty pounds. Thus, it appears to interpolate from these facts that DeLaughter's wage earning capacity could not have been diminished by his accident. The Commission states three times in its opinion that South Central had a policy regarding weight limits. Discussing DeLaughter's return to work in November, 1988, the Commission expressly found: A coworker was told to assist him with heavy lifting. As a matter of fact, a supervisor at the parts company testified that it was company policy that no employee should lift more than forty pounds without asking assistance from a coworker. The evidence in the record simply does not substantiate this finding. Bruce Brawner, retained by South Central to make a vocational assessment of DeLaughter's abilities, stated in his January 11, 1990 Final Vocational Rehabilitation Report that: It was identified that there are some parts that weighed 100-200 pounds, but I was advised by Mr. Smith that it is a policy that no one lift over 40 pounds, and that if a part weighing over that amount was required to be moved or stocked, that the employee should either use a forklift, moved or stocked, that the employee should either use a forklift, the hydraulic lift, or call upon another individual to do the heavy lifting. The record contains no evidence of this alleged policy. Carl Smith, manager of South Central and assistant manager at the time DeLaughter was injured, testified regarding company policies for overtime and doctor's excuses. However, there is no testimony about company policies on heavy lifting. He indicated only that because of the restrictions imposed by his doctor, DeLaughter was instructed to seek assistance with heavy lifting and that Bruce Clifft assigned someone to assist him. Clifft, manager at the time DeLaughter was injured, discussed the various forklifts and other machinery available to assist workers with heavy items, but gave no indication in his deposition that South Central had any specific policies regarding heavy lifting. He stated that he assigned another worker, Walter Mister, to assist DeLaughter and to see that he did not lift anything weighing more than forty pounds. Neither Mister nor another co-worker, Randolph Ware, made any reference to a company policy restricting weight limits for lifting. The argument could be made that the Commission's finding was based on Dr. Azordegan's opinion that DeLaughter had suffered a four percent (4%) permanent partial disability. Summing up the extent of DeLaughter's disability in his deposition, Dr. Azordegan stated, As far as anatomophysiological [sic] 4 percent, but because he cannot work [the] same job, this is up to you, up to him. We have articulated the distinction between medical disability and industrial disability as follows: Generally, medical disability is the equivalent of a functional disability and relates to actual physical impairment. Industrial disability is the functional or medical disability as it affects the claimant's ability to perform the duties of employment. Robinson v. Packard Electric Division, General Motors Corp., 523 So.2d 329, 331 (Miss. 1988). Further, we have held that [g]enerally, predicating an award on medical or functional disability rather than upon a determination of the extent of loss of industrial use or impairment of claimant's wage earning capacity is error. Smith v. Jackson Construction Co., 607 So.2d 1119, 1125 (Miss. 1992). This is consistent with our definition of disability as the incapacity to earn the wages which the employee was receiving at the time of the injury in the same or other employment. Jordan v. Hercules, Inc., 600 So.2d 179, 183 (Miss. 1992). In determining loss of wage earning capacity, we consider factors such as the amount of training and education which the claimant has had, his inability to work, his failure to be hired elsewhere, the continuance of pain, and any other related circumstances. McGowan v. Orleans Furniture, Inc., 586 So.2d 163, 167 (Miss. 1991). Thus, determination should be made only after considering the evidence as a whole. Id. It is undisputed that DeLaughter has only an eight grade education. Donald Drane, head of the Greenville office of the Mississippi Employment Security Commission, stated in his deposition that based on DeLaughter's limited education, his forty pound lifting restriction and the above-average unemployment figures in Washington County and the surrounding area, his prospects for employment were rather bleak. Considering the efforts DeLaughter made to find other employment and his inability to keep a job after leaving South Central because of his physical and educational limitations, his prognosis seems accurate. We are reminded that workers' compensation law is to be liberally and broadly construed, resolving doubtful cases in favor of compensation so that the beneficent purposes of the act may be accomplished. Marshall Durbin Companies v. Warren, 633 So.2d 1006, 1010 (Miss. 1994); General Electric Co. v. McKinnon, 507 So.2d 363, 367 (Miss. 1987); Barham v. Klumb Forest Products Center, Inc., 453 So.2d 1300, 1304 (Miss. 1984). From the Commission's interpretation of the evidence, this evidently was not done. Moreover, there is a lack of evidence to support the Commission's findings, particularly those regarding South Central's alleged policy requiring workers to seek assistance when lifting parts weighing more than forty pounds. Accordingly, we reverse and remand to the Commission for a redetermination of the extent of DeLaughter's permanent loss of wage earning capacity. The awards of temporary disability benefits, necessary medical expenses, and penalties, however, are affirmed. AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED TO THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION FOR PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION. HAWKINS, C.J., DAN M. LEE and PRATHER, P.JJ., and SULLIVAN, PITTMAN, BANKS, JAMES L. ROBERTS, Jr. and SMITH, JJ., concur.