Court Opinion

ID: 9697110
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 19:06:13.655162+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:29.242162
License: Public Domain

White, C. Thomas, J.,
dissenting.
Even under the more limited standard with which we now review the decisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Court, I cannot agree with the majority that the finding of that court is not clearly wrong.
An analysis of the evidence when measured by the applicable standard of what constitutes permanent total disability reveals there is no material evidence to support the defendants’ position that the plaintiff is not entitled to recovery. As the majority states, where an employee is totally unable to perform the duties of former employment or work of like nature, he is entitled to recover for permanent total disability. See Tilghman v. Mills, 169 Neb. 665, 100 N. W. 2d 739. Plaintiff was employed as an apprentice bricklayer at the time of injury. An official of the bricklayers’ union, who had been a bricklayer almost 20 years prior to becoming a union official, testified that bricklaying is “heavy type work” and *324a “job where you must be able to bend over constantly and lift constantly.” The official also testified that the lifting involves concrete blocks and tile units of various weights, some over 40 pounds. The plaintiff testified that he lifted blocks of 60 pounds or more in the course of his employment and, on occasion, handled 200 to 300 blocks a day. Plaintiff was 27 years old at the time of the accident; he began working at 18 and the only work he has done is construction work and hooking logs in a paper mill.
The reports of two physicians were in evidence. Dr. Louis F. Tribulato determined the plaintiff is totally disabled. Dr. Bernard L. Kratochvil gave the plaintiff a 15 percent permanent partial disability rating and said plaintiff “could do work that does not require excessive bending, weight bearing, or lifting.” Admittedly Dr. Kratochvil’s testimony is not as conclusive in nature as is Dr. Tribulato’s, in relation to plaintiff’s claim. Dr. Kratochvil’s report does not relate his opinion to plaintiff’s former occupation. He did not testify that plaintiff could perform the usual and normal tasks required of a bricklayer.
Dr. Kratochvil’s testimony does not refute Dr. Tribulato’s opinion. It simply avoids the issue. The evidence does not damage plaintiff’s claim or support defendants’ contention.
In a letter to the plaintiff of June 11, 1976, Otto K. Link, a rehabilitation counselor, stated that: “In view of the nature and severity of your disability at this time, it does not appear that there is a likelihood or reasonable expectation that through vocational rehabilitation services you will be able to engage in a gainful occupation.” Plaintiff had been unsuccessful in finding employment through vocational rehabilitation, but testified he was receptive to the idea that he try to utilize this program in the future.
Defendants called a Pinkerton detective who conducted a 1-day surveillance of the plaintiff on July *32529, 1975. The detective made another surveillance, but no report of this was in evidence. The detective testified he observed plaintiff swimming and lifting a spare tire and bicycle from the trunk of a car. The bicycle was estimated to weigh between 15 and 20 pounds.
Even if we resolve the truth of this evidence in favor of the defendants, and afford them every reasonable inference, this evidence fails any test of sufficiency because it is immaterial to the issue to be resolved. The issue is whether the plaintiff has suffered a permanent total disability. We have stated such a condition exists when an employee can no longer perform the duties of former employment or work of like nature. The fact that an individual swims is not synonymous with the capability to perform sustained lifting, bending, and climbing. Plaintiff here had suffered a back injury.. Swimming can be therapeutic to such ailments. The random incidents of lifting a bicycle weighing 15 to 20 pounds and a spare tire cannot be compared to continuous lifting of heavy objects such as concrete blocks. Plaintiff had testified the intensity of the pain varies and is more severe on some days than others. Correspondingly, his activity reflects his state of discomfort. On some days he is unable to get out of bed and cannot attend to even routine activities without assistance. On other days, it may be assumed he engages in moderate activity, including some lifting. It is interesting to note that the compensation court’s order recited: “ * * * the Court feels that defendants’ evidence showing the plaintiff was able to swim, jump or dive from a diving board and remove a spare tire from the trunk of a Cadillac is sufficiently persuasive to show that the plaintiff’s disability is not total and permanent.” However, permanent total disability does not mean a state of absolute helplessness. See Elliott v. Gooch Feed Mill Co., 147 Neb. 612, 24 N. W. 2d 561. No evidence, *326expert or otherwise, supports the compensation court’s view that these activities indicate plaintiff can perform his duties as a bricklayer.
Here, the plaintiff has supported his claim of permanent total disability with an orthopedic specialist’s conclusion that he is totally disabled. Defendants have failed to produce any material evidence to refute this. Therefore, I would reverse the judgment of the compensation court on rehearing and reinstate the judgment on hearing, allowing plaintiff to recover for permanent total disability.
Clinton, J., joins in this dissent.