Court Opinion

ID: 9723778
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 10:30:55.284403+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:51.830538
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion
Hoffman, P.J.
I dissent from the opinion of the majority. I do, however, agree with the definition in the majority opinion of “industrial blindness”, Le., a man is “industrially blind” only when he has less than 20/200 vision with glasses. Accepting this definition, it is clear that appellant did not have a prior physical condition under Acts 1929, ch. 172, § 33, as amended by Acts 1945, ch. 284, § 2, p. 1261, Burns Ind. Stat. Anno., § 40-1305, 1965 Replacement. Only if appellant would have had vision of less than 20/20 “with glasses” prior to the accident involved in this appeal, would he have had a prior physical condition so as to make § 40-1305, supra, applicable.
I also agree that Acts 1963, ch. 387, § 7, p. 1025, Burns Ind. Stat. Anno., § 40-1303 (b) (4), 1965 Replacement, does not apply.
Section 40-1303(b) (4), supra, reads as follows:
“(4) For any permanent reduction of the sight of an eye less than a total loss as specified in section 31(a) (3) [this section], a compensation shall be paid for a period proportionate to the degree of such permanent reduction without correction or glasses. However, when such permanent reduction without correction or glasses would result in a one hundred per cent [100%] loss of vision, but correction or glasses would result in restoration of vision, then in such event, compensation shall be paid for fifty per cent [50 %] of such total loss of vision without glasses, plus an additional amount equal to the proportionate amount of such *10reduction with glasses, not to exceed an additional fifty per cent [50 % ].”
Section 40-1303 (b) (4), supra, would not apply to appellant because he had no vision — uncorrected—prior to the injury. This was recognized by Dean Small in 1 Workmen’s Comp. Ind. Laws (1950), §8.28 at 202, when he stated:
“Glasses as a Factor
“In determining impairment under subsection (b), paragraph (4), dealing with permanent reduction in sight not amounting to industrial blindness, glasses have no part. It is only under subsection (a), paragraph (3) that glasses are considered in determining normal vision. * * *”
Although it is not decisive in this case, I disagree with the holding of the majority that “contact lenses” are not within the ordinary and common meaning of the word “glasses.” Contact lenses, when used to serve the same function as glasses are included within the term “glasses.” Also, “glasses” as used in the Workmen’s Compensation Act includes contact lens, at least when they are used to serve the same function as glasses. However, in this case the contact lens is serving a different function and is not included within the word glasses.
I agree with the majority that § 40-1303 (a) (3), which reads as follows, does apply:
“(3) For the permanent and complete loss of vision by enucleation or its reduction to one-tenth [1/10] of normal vision with glasses, one hundred seventy-five [175] weeks.”
Unlike the majority, however, I do not believe that appellant is entitled to the full 175 weeks. Appellant is entitled to the proportionate permanent loss of vision resulting from the industrial injury. Section 40-1303 (a) (3), supra, does apply to an employee who has vision, with glasses, prior to an injury and has less vision, with glasses, as a result of the injury. For the loss of vision, with glasses, the employee is *11paid the percentage of his loss of vision — with 175 weeks being 100 % loss of vision.
Appellant now has a prior physical condition within the terms of § 40-1305, supra, by the definition of industrial blindness accepted by the majority. However, the application of § 40-1303 (a) (3), supra, completely emasculates §40-1305, supra, and makes it nugatory as to the vision which appellant has retained and, in effect, pays appellant in advance for vision which he has not lost.
I further disagree with the holding that the contact lens in this case is like an artificial member or limb.
Section 40-1303, supra, specifically states the compensation which should be awarded an employee in the event of an industrial accident resulting in permanent injury. When speaking of “eyes” in § 40-1303,' supra, the Legislature at all times referred to “vision.” Thus, an employee is to be compensated for permanent impairment under the Workmen’s Compensation Act only for a loss of, or a reduction in, his ability to see.
For a permanent injury in which part of the eye would be lost without a resulting loss of vision — the employee would be entitled to no compensation for permanent impairment. The loss compensable under the Act is loss of vision.
The majority opinion has judicially added to § 40-1303, supra, the loss of a portion of the eye, in this case the crystalline lens, notwithstanding the fact that modern medical technology has replaced the lens to minimize the loss of “vision.”
If the theory of the majority were to be applied to an employee who has his crushed femur stabilized with a “pin” or with a “metal plate” and “screws”, he would be compensated for the loss of the entire limb because without the mechanical additions to his body he would have lost the use of the leg. Likewise, an employee who suffered burns in an industrial accident would be entitled to compensation for loss of the arm on the theory that without the skin graft he would have lost the arm. The same theory is utilized when compensation *12is awarded for a total loss of “vision” to an employee who still has 20/50 vision.
The contact lens in the instant case should be considered as part of the medical care and treatment given by the physician in the effort to minimize appellant’s loss of vision. The fact that the lens is removable and was not surgically inserted does not make it the equivalent of an artificial limb.
I would remand this case to the Full Industrial Board with instructions to take further action consistent with this opinion.
Note. — Reported in 258 N. E. 2d 175.