Court Opinion

ID: 9623038
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 06:26:51.889714+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:05:22.569701
License: Public Domain

Fromme, J.,
dissenting.
This court under the guise of liberal construction of the Workmens Compensation Act should not change a long-established statutory and decisional rule merely to assist a claimant in obtaining an award when he has failed to establish by evidence his entitlement to such an award under established law.
The Act does not recognize functional disability as the test to be used in determining an award for permanent partial disability. Loss of earning power of the workman is, and has been, the theoretical basis for allowance of compensation until the present majority opinion was written.
In G. S. 1949, 44-510 ( 3) (22) the legislature provided:
“. • . In case of . . . permanent partial disability . . . the workman shall receive ... 60 percent of the difference between the amount he was earning prior to said injury . . . and the amount he is able to earn after such injury in any employment, . .
In 1972 when claimant’s injury occurred the legislative direction appeared in K. S. A. 44-510e as follows:
“. . . In case of . . . permanent disability . . . the workman shall receive . . . sixty percent (60%) of the difference between the amount he was earning prior to said injury . . . and the amount he is able to earn after such injury in employment, . . .”
Under the law effective July 1, 1974 (K. S. A. 1975 Supp. 44-510e) the legislature states:
“. . . The extent of permanent partial general disability shall be the extent, expressed as a percentage, to which the ability of the workman to engage in work of the same type and character that he was performing at the time of his injury, has been reduced. . . .”
Mr. Justice Owsley in June of this year, speaking for the court, stated:
“. . . The test for determining the disability of an injured workman is the extent to which his ability has been impaired to procure in the open labor market, and to perform and retain work of the same type and character he was capable of performing before his injury. . . (Reichuber v. Cook Well Servicing, 220 Kan. 93, p. 96, 551 P. 2d 810).
This rule was based on the statutory provisions in K. S. A. 44-510e and has been expressed and adhered to in all our previous cases.
*200Functional disability has been examined and consistently rejected by this court as not a proper measure of permanent partial disability compensable under the Act.
In Gray v. Beller, 199 Kan. 284, 428 P. 2d 833, there was testimony of functional disability of 15% but there was additional testimony of loss of earning power under the work disability test. This court affirmed a district court’s finding of 50% permanent partial disability and held that functional disability was not the proper measure of compensable disability.
In Davis v. Winchester Packing Co., 204 Kan. 215, 460 P. 2d 617, the respondents argued the loss of function of 15%, as found by the doctor, and the partial disability of 75% as found by the district court, must have some correlation. The argument was rejected by this court.
In Elliott v. Rains & Williamson Oil Co., 213 Kan. 340, 516 P. 2d 1004, there was evidence of 15% permanent partial disability and 10% impairment of function of the body. The trial court’s award of 15% was affirmed by this court after applying the test of work disability.
In Webb v. Globe Construction Company, 213 Kan. 681, 518 P. 2d 419, the claimant’s principal contention on appeal was that the district court’s 32/2% award was based solely on testimony of functional disability when there was other testimony of permanent partial disability ranging from 25% to 75%. We reaffirmed the work disability test and affirmed the trial court’s award.
In Gross v. Herb Lungren Chevrolet, Inc., 220 Kan. 585, 552 P. 2d 1360, we recently pointed out that in scheduled injuries ratings under K. S. A. 44-510d are expressed in terms of “loss of the use” which is functional loss. We rejected the argument that work disability should be used to determine a scheduled injury award. Referring to the work disability rule we say:
“. . . This rule has been applied exclusively in cases involving general bodily disability, not scheduled injuries.” (220 Kan. p. 586.)
In face of the long legislative pronouncement on the test to be used in arriving at the extent of an award for permanent partial general disability the majority opinion legislates a new rule and overturns the prior decisions of this court. This can have but one effect. It will add confusion to the body of decisional law and create many more questions for the appellate courts of this state to decide.
*201The majority opinion points out that the record in this case fails to disclose any evidence of work disability, in that claimant made no effort to relate the extent of his injury to the type and character of work he was able to perform before he was injured. There was a total lack of evidence on this necessary issue. The claimant has the burden of proving his entitlement to an award. See Meyers v. Consolidated Printing & Stationery Co., 201 Kan. 806, 809, 443 P. 2d 319. The burden of proof as previously declared in the decisions of this cotut is now mandated by K. S. A. 1975 Supp. 44-501. The claimant in the present case failed in his proof, and this court to compensate for his failure now adopts a second test of disability which in the future must be considered in arriving at an award for permanent partial bodily disability. In effect we say the trial court in the absence of evidence of work disability must award permanent partial bodily disability based upon evidence of functional disability. This flies directly in the face of our statutory law.
What will be the ultimate effect of such a holding when evidence of functional disability is 15% and evidence of work disability is 50% as in Gray v. Better, supra, or when evidence of functional disability is 45% and evidence of work disability runs from 25% to 75% as in Webb v. Globe Construction Company, supra? If evidence of functional disability will support an award it must be acknowledged that it has probative value in determining every award. Sooner or later we will be forced to re-examine our decision in Davis v. Winchester Packing Co., supra, and declare some correlation between testimony of functional disability and testimony of work disability. The holding in paragraph one of the syllabus may be interpreted two ways. First, it may indicate that the percentage of functional disability is to be used as the test when there is no evidence of work disability or second, it may very well indicate to the trial courts that the percentage of functional disability controls the minimum amount of an award for permanent partial disability.
The difficulty in applying the new rule, which recognizes that evidence of functional disability will support an award for permanent partial disability, is apparent. There is no correlation between the percentage of functional disability and the percentage of work disability when one examines our prior cases. The evidence may indicate a small percentage of functional disability and a large percentage of work disability. In other cases a substantial per*202centage of functional disability has resulted in a smaller percentage of work disability. Under this new rule a claimant is free to choose the basis upon which he claims compensable disability. Work disability is no longer the test.
Tire trial court in the present case denied an award for permanent partial bodily disability saying:
“The facts in this case are unlike those in the Puckett case. We do not have a claimant that has always engaged in occupations requiring hard physical exertion. Claimant here was a truck driver and after an accident engaged in an occupation requiring hard physical exertion and claims he cannot do 30% of what he could do before the accident. Since there is no evidence to suggest that claimant cannot perform the same labor he was able to perform prior to the injury, the Court would conclude that claimant has not suffered a permanent partial disability.”
The trial court was eminently correct in its application of the law. The claimant failed to introduce evidence which would support an award.
In the wake of the present decision the bench and the bar of this state will be totally confused in an area of the law which has heretofore been relatively certain. Is the 1974 legislative direction in K. S. A. 1975 Supp. 44-510e that “the extent of permanent partial general disability shall be the extent, expressed as a percentage, to which the ability of the workman to engage in work of the same type and character that he was performing at the time of his injury, has been reduced” now repealed by this court? If so, the repeal was effected without reference or comment on the statute which was not yet in effect when claimant received his injury.
Accordingly I dissent from paragraph one of the syllabus and the corresponding portion of the opinion. I would affirm on both appeal and cross appeal.
Miller, J., joins in the foregoing dissenting opinion.