Opinion ID: 1873626
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: industrial loss of use

Text: The Commission found that McGowan did not prove an industrial loss of use of the left leg beyond the 40% impairment rating assigned by Dr. Conn. The Commission based its decision on the fact that McGowan admitted that he could still operate the tools used in cabinet-making, i.e., a table saw and a sander, that McGowan did not present any evidence showing that he was unable to do the substantial acts required of him in his usual occupation, and that McGowan did not present evidence showing that he is unable to pursue gainful employment. McGowan appeals this decision. We explained the difference between a medical disability and an industrial disability in Robinson v. Packard Electric Division, General Motors Corp., 523 So.2d 329 (Miss. 1988). Generally, `medical' disability is the equivalent of 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, 523 So.2d at 331. Vardaman Dunn, a noted Mississippi authority on workers' compensation, has this to say with regard to the difference: The question in these cases is the degree of loss of use of the member for wage earning purposes, and this issue is for determination from the evidence as a whole, including medical estimates related either to the functional or industrial loss and the testimony of the claimant and other lay witnesses as to the effect of the injury upon the employee's ability to perform the duties required of him in his usual employment. In this connection, a partial loss of functional use may result in total disability, and to reach this result it is not necessary that the employee be wholly incapacitated to perform any duty incident to his usual employment or business; but if he is prevented by his injury from doing the substantial acts required of him in his usual occupation, or if his resulting condition is such that common care and prudence require that he cease work, he is totally disabled within the meaning of the statute.       Indeed, more estimates of the medical or functional loss may have little value when compared with lay testimony by the claimant that he suffers pain when attempting use of the member and that he has tried to work and is unable to perform the usual duties of his customary employment, and this is especially true when such testimony is corroborated by persons who have observed the claimant's attempt to work or who have refused to employ the claimant because of his apparent affliction. (footnotes omitted) Piggly Wiggly v. Houston, 464 So.2d 510, 512 (Miss. 1985) [quoting Dunn, Mississippi Workmen's Compensation 3rd Ed. § 86, p. 102, 103]. In Robinson, supra, the appellant argued that medical proof establishing the degree of functional disability was proof ipso facto of the degree of industrial disability. The Court said that the appellant's argument flies in the face of the principle and that to show industrial disability, the claimant bears the burden of proving not only medical impairment but also a loss of wage-earning capacity as a result of the medical impairment. Robinson, 523 So.2d at 331. We have applied an industrial loss rate to the loss of use of a scheduled member in several cases. For example, in Tyler v. Oden Construction Co., 241 Miss. 270, 130 So.2d 552 (1961), we held that the claimant suffered a 100% loss of use of his leg and ankle although he was given a disability rating of approximately 50%. Citing Tyler as support for entering a judgment for 100% disability when a scheduled member is injured, the Court in Richey v. City of Tupelo, 361 So.2d 995 (Miss. 1978), held that the claimant lost 100% use of his arm for wage-earning purposes although the Commission found that the claimant had suffered a 50% disability. McManus v. Southern United Ice Co., 243 Miss. 576, 138 So.2d 899 (1962), involved an on-the-job injury to the arm of the claimant. Only one doctor testified and he said that the claimant had suffered a 20% disability and there was nothing which indicated that he could not work. On the other hand, the claimant and his family testified that he was unable to work because of the pain in his arm. The Commission found that the claimant had suffered a 100% loss of use of his arm. This Court affirmed that decision saying that although the evidence was not as strong as it was in other cases, the evidence was substantial and supported the findings of the Commission. In Modern Laundry, Inc. v. Williams, 224 Miss. 174, 79 So.2d 829 (1955), the claimant injured his hand and arm while performing his duties as a dry cleaner. This Court found that the claimant had suffered a 100% loss of use of his arm because he was unable to perform the duties involved in his usual employment. Such a situation, the Court said, is controlled by the rule laid down in M.T. Reed Construction Company et al. v. Martin, 215 Miss. 472, 61 So.2d 300 [(1952)], and reaffirmed by us in Lucedale Veneer Company et al. v. Keel, No. 39, 607 [223 Miss. 821, 79 So.2d 233], rendered April 11, 1955, and not yet reported. The estimates of the two doctors as to the extent of the appellee's loss of use of the left arm were mere estimates of medical disability. The question which the commission had to decide was whether the appellee's loss of use of the arm was a total loss of use or a partial loss of use of the arm for wage earning purposes; and that question had to be determined from the evidence as a whole, including the testimony of the appellee and the other witnesses who testified during the hearing concerning the appellee's ability to use the arm for wage earning purposes after the injury. The reports of the two doctors indicate very clearly the crippled condition of the appellee's arm a year after the injury. It was the duty of the commission to determine from those reports and the other evidence as a whole whether the loss of use of the arm was a total or partial loss of use. Modern Laundry, 224 Miss. at 179-180, 79 So.2d at 832. The Commission is not confined to medical testimony in determining the percentage of loss to be assigned to an injury. Malone & Hyde of Tupelo, Inc. v. Kent, 250 Miss. 879, 168 So.2d 526 (1964). Lay testimony may be considered to supplement medical testimony but [t]he probative value of any witness' testimony is for the fact-finder to determine. R.C. Petroleum, Inc. v. Hernandez, 555 So.2d 1017, 1021 (Miss. 1990). Factors which this Court has considered in determining loss of wage earning capacity include the amount of education and training which the claimant has had, his inability to work, his failure to be hired elsewhere, the continuance of pain, and any other related circumstances. Malone & Hyde of Tupelo, 250 Miss. at 882, 168 So.2d at 527. In other words, the determination should be made only after considering the evidence as a whole. Piggly Wiggly, 464 So.2d at 512. Whether McGowan suffered a 100% industrial loss of use is a question of fact to be determined from the evidence as a whole. The only testimony before the Commission and this Court is that of McGowan and Dr. Conn. McGowan is a forty-three year old man who dropped out of school in the tenth grade to help support his family. From that time until the time of his injury, he worked in construction and did carpentry work. He had also delivered furniture at one point. At Orleans Furniture, McGowan did not perform any one particular job. He was moved around from job to job as needed. Some of the jobs that he performed included working in the sanding department, cutting out chest-of-drawer tops, and working in the mill. McGowan said that after his injury, he could not do any jobs which required him to stand but he could sand edges and use a table saw. He said that he could not do certain activities which he was able to do before his injury such as playing basketball and doing carpentry work. McGowan said that he continues to have problems with his leg every day. The leg continues to have some swelling and to cause pain. After he stands on it for several hours, he suffers sharp pain which causes headaches. Dr. Conn testified that McGowan has a 40% permanent partial impairment of his left leg. He said that McGowan would be limited in activities such as standing for long periods, climbing ladders and stairs, and carrying heavy loads. However, McGowan could work in sedentary type positions where he could sit to do the work. The whole of this evidence indicates that McGowan is certainly limited in the jobs he will be able to perform in the future. The jobs which he has performed in the past, such as construction and carpentry work and delivering furniture, will no longer be alternatives. McGowan will be forced to look for jobs that allow him to sit down and with his limited education and training, such jobs will be difficult to find. McGowan has not attempted to return to work nor does he offer testimony from anyone else as to the effect his injury has had on his ability to perform his work. McGowan says that he can still operate a sander and a table saw. However, operation of those tools is not proof that he can perform the substantial acts required of him in the performance of his job. McGowan was employed by Orleans Furniture to fill in wherever needed. In that capacity, McGowan was required to do more than operate a sander and table saw. The evidence as a whole indicates that the finding of the Commission that McGowan suffered only a 40% industrial loss of his leg was not supported by substantial evidence. The testimony of Dr. Conn together with McGowan's testimony supports a finding of 100% industrial loss of use of his left leg, a scheduled member. Since the holding of the Commission on this issue is clearly erroneous and is contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence, we reverse the findings of both the Commission and the Circuit Court and hold that McGowan has suffered a 100% industrial loss of use of his left leg. He may recover for the maximum number of weeks, one hundred and seventy-five, allowed by the schedule. See Walker Manufacturing Co. v. Cantrell, 577 So.2d 1243 (Miss. 1991).