Court Opinion

ID: 9775770
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 19:08:40.356963+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:30.929362
License: Public Domain

OSBORN, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. While I have no quarrel with the results reached by the majority opinion, I cannot agree that that result has been reached under existing Texas law. Believing that this intermediate court is bound to follow the law as stated by the highest court of this state, I am compelled to dissent.
In Travelers’ Ins. Co. v. Richmond, 284 S.W. 698 (Tex.Civ.App.—Beaumont 1926), the court noted that the sight of the claimant’s eye was destroyed for all practical purposes, yet when aided by the use of glasses the sight was substantially restored. The court stated the controlling issue upon which the case had to be decided. It said:
Therefore the decisive question in the case is, Where the use of an eye is, for all practical purposes, destroyed by an injury to same, in so far as the natural use of the eye is concerned, but by the use of properly adjusted glasses the vision can be largely restored, has the party, within the meaning and intent of the Workmen’s Compensation Law lost the use of the eye? In other words, where the eye, by reason of injury, is, for all practical purposes, useless without the aid of artificial means, is the injured party entitled to compensation?
*490After making note of various authorities from other jurisdictions which had held both that the use of glasses was to be considered in determining the loss of sight and cases which held that the use of glasses was not to be considered in determining the loss of sight, the court followed those cases which held that the use of glasses was not to be considered in determining the loss of use of one’s sight under the Workers’ Compensation Act.
Upon further review, that decision was reversed and the cause remanded. Travelers’ Ins. Co. v. Richmond, 291 S.W. 1085 (Tex.Comm’n.App.1927, holding approved). The opinion by the Commission of Appeals pointed out that the claimant had lost ninety-nine percent of his vision, but with glasses, one doctor estimated that he had ninety-one percent vision and the other doctor indicated there was no impairment whatever. In reversing the Court of Civil Appeals, it was noted that the claimant’s sight was not totally lost and the court said:
Vision is considered to be a sense for the use of which the eye is a designed agency, and it is to be assumed that the faculty itself remains even though an essential agency be completely destroyed. If the agency be but impaired, the faculty is but thwarted pro tanto. For such a case as that before us science has devised appliances which, in substantial part at least, supply the destroyed parts of the agency which nature designed. Through those artificial means, or through those means employed in aid of nature, the sense functions. A solecism exists in a declaration that that which may be recovered is lost, and there is manifest contradiction of terms in saying that a sense, or emotion, which is merely suspended in whole or part for a time and which becomes active again is permanently lost.
Although the court recognized that a requested special issue was improper, apparently because it was evidentiary, the court nevertheless said: “[t]he matter thus sought to be inquired about (impaired vision corrected by the use of glasses) is a proper subject of evidence, * * The only conclusion to be reached from that opinion is that the effect of glasses in restoring vision may be shown by the evidence and certainly if that evidence is admissible then it must be considered by the trier of the facts. That was the conclusion reached by both the majority and the dissenting opinion in Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Davis, 196 S.W.2d 35 (Tex.Civ.App.—Dallas 1946, no writ).
In this summary judgment case, the oral deposition testimony of the claimant’s own doctor states that the claimant’s vision was corrected to somewhere near normal with the artificial lens. He testified as follows:
[Q.] As I have understood your testimony today, by March 16, 1979, Mr. Lucio, Jr., had achieved normal vision in his left eye with the contact lens which was given him by Dr. Fushille?
A. That’s right, correct.
Q. And so that as of March 16, 1979, the vision in his left eye was as normal as the vision in his right eye?
A. Right.
Q. Both eyes having 20/20 vision?
A. At distance.
Q. All right.
A. I may add to that particular item that an aphakic eye, which is what we are discussing here, loses the capability of accommodation, and therefore, in order to attain a 20/20 vision at near needs reading glasses.
Q. As a matter of fact, Doctor, I believe by June 27, 1979, a bifocal lens was prescribed which eliminated that problem and gave Mr. Lucio normal vision for both distance and reading, is that not correct?
I can see you nod, but the Court Reporter needs to have your answer.
A. Yes.
Q. So that insofar as the sight distance was concerned, by March 16, 1979, Mr. Lucio, Jr., had the same normal vision in both eyes?
A. Correct.
*491Q. And by June, 1979, he also had the same normal vision in both eyes with regard to his ability to read.
A. Correct.
Attached to the Response to the Motion for Summary Judgment was the affidavit of the physician who fitted the contact lens on the claimant. His affidavit states that after fitting a contact lens the patient was able to achieve 20/20 vision in the left eye. The affidavit filed by the claimant in support of his Motion for Summary Judgment acknowledges that “[w]ith the contact lens I do have vision in the left eye.”
Following the holding in the Richmond case that the corrected or restored vision “is a proper subject of evidence,” I can only conclude in this summary judgment case that the injury to the claimant's eye did not result in total and permanent loss of the sight of the left eye. Certainly, the evidence does not establish the contrary as a matter of law in a summary judgment case.1
I also disagree with the majority holding that specific injuries under Section 12 of Article 8306, Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann., are not based on their effect on the workman’s incapacity or ability to obtain and retain employment. The majority concludes that if incapacity was the measure by which an award was determined under Section 12, then the use of corrective lens would be a consideration. Clearly, under the holding in Travelers Insurance Company v. Seabolt, 361 S.W.2d 204 (Tex.1962), there exists a right to submit to the jury an issue inquiring if the injury to the specific member is such as to prohibit the workman from procuring and retaining employment. See: Volume 2 Texas Pattern Jury Charges, PJC 26.04 (1970).
The reason I have no quarrel with the results reached by the majority is that practically every state which has passed upon the issue has held “that loss of use should be judged on the basis of uncorrected vision or hearing, and that therefore loss of use will not be ruled out because some correction is achieved.” 2 Larson’s Workman’s Compensation Law, sec. 58.-13(f)(1983). I would expect that once the issue is again considered by the Texas Supreme Court the decision in the Richmond case will be overruled. But until that time, I feel compelled to follow the earlier decision.
But, it must be recognized that if the decision in the Richmond case is not followed and the majority opinion in this case is affirmed, there can be dire circumstances for those who have a lens implant before accepting employment and then sustain an eye injury which results in their loss of vision. Even though their corrected vision may have been 20/20, they would not be entitled to workers’ compensation benefits because the earlier loss of a lens would have resulted in their total loss of sight and there would be no sight to compensate for in a subsequent injury. See: Pridgeon v. Industrial Commission, 89 Ill.2d 477, 60 Ill.Dec. 617, 433 N.E.2d 659 (1982).
For the reasons set forth above, I respectfully dissent.

. The majority holding that "anything less than 20/200 is legally blind” fails to recognize that the statute so defining the word "blind” provides "with correcting lenses.” See: Human Resources Code sec. 91.002(2).