Court Opinion

ID: 9548042
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:56:40.461236+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:18:24.285649
License: Public Domain

STRUCKMEYER, Vice Chief Justice,
concurring in part, dissenting in part:
During World War II, Alsbrooks incurred two disabilities, (1) an injury to his right knee caused by shrapnel, which limited his mobility in kneeling and climbing, and (2) a back injury. Since the Veterans Administration presently rates Alsbrooks as 50% disabled, it can hardly be doubted but that these injuries should be considered and combined with the work-related injury to Alsbrooks’ left leg so as to require the application of the provisions of subdivisions C, D and E, the nonscheduled injury provisions of A.R.S. § 23-1044.
Subdivisions B, C, D and E of § 23-1044, as amended by Laws 1973, Ch. 133, § 25, are set out in full since I believe the legislative language is critical.1
An examination of this Court’s former decisions .shows that subdivisions C, D and *485E have application to four general factual situations. First, to injuries such as to the head or back which are not enumerated in subdivision B. Second, to those cases where there has been a combination of two or more injuries in one accident, for, as this Court said in 1935 (Ossic v. Verde Central Mines, 46 Ariz. 176, 188, 49 P.2d 396, 401):
“ * * * the Legislature has realized that in compensation cases two plus two does not necessarily equal four, but in some cases may equal six or more.”
Third, subdivisions C, D and E have been applied where two or more injuries arising out of employment were incurred at different times, and, fourth, to cases where a *486worker had previously sustained an injury which did not arise out of employment. Both of the last two instances are compensable for the same reason stated in Ossic v. Verde Central Mines; namely, that the last injury when combined with a previous disability for work may exceed the total work disability if the percentage of the two disabilities are simply added together.
Cases characteristic of the fourth category are Woods v. Industrial Commission, 91 Ariz. 14, 368 P.2d 758 (1962), where in a nonindustrial accident claimant had fallen from a tree, resulting in traumatic paraplegia necessitating amputation of both legs at his thighs, and he later incurred an industrial injury to his right hand while operating a punch press; and McKinney v. Industrial Commission, 78 Ariz. 264, 278 P.2d 887 (1955), where claimant suffered a nonindustrial accident resulting in the loss of his right leg and later sprained his left ankle in an industrial accident. The Court there commented:
“We are unable to perceive how subdivision (e) can be ignored. It makes express provision for apportioning the percentage of disability chargeable to the employer for a subsequent disabling injury. By its terms special provision is made for this special situation. Under such conditions, subdivision (b) has no application.” (Emphasis supplied.) Id. at 266, 278 P.2d at 888.
The decision by the Industrial Commission was not correct in rating Alsbrooks under subdivision B of § 23-1044 as a scheduled injury when the record, without contradiction, established prior injuries which were disabling for work. In this I agree with the majority.
But the decision goes further than simply answering the question which was raised by the parties to the appeal. It is used as a springboard by the majority of the Court to express an opinion as to legal matters wholly unnecessary to a determination of the case. I am therefore compelled to disagree with the conclusions expressed and dissent to all the dicta of the majority, particularly that overruling Ross v. Industrial Commission, 112 Ariz. 253, 540 P.2d 1234 (1975). If a governing rule of law of this jurisdiction should be changed, it should be in a case in which there is an appropriate fact situation, the issue is directly raised and counsel have been given the opportunity to brief the problem and give the Court the benefit of their views. Moreover, because the dicta involves a change in statutes by adding language which changes the meaning, it is clear that the majority have usurped the legislative prerogative to decide what the law should be.
At the onset it should be understood that the percentage of physical disability of an injured workman has no necessary parallel relationship to the percentage of loss of earnings. In Hoffman v. Brophy, 61 Ariz. 307, 313, 149 P.2d 160, 163, in 1944 this Court observed:
“We certainly do not agree with the respondent employer that it is obvious that in the vast majority of cases arising under the Act that the percentage of ‘functional disability’ would be almost identical with the percentage' of ‘decreased ability to earn.’ For instance, with the ordinary professional man or other ‘white collared’ worker a back injury causing a 15% or 25% ‘functional disability’ might not decrease his earning capacity at all; whereas, with a common laborer such a back injury might be nothing short of an economic disaster. There is no necessary parallel relationship between the percentage of general functional physical disability and the percentage of loss of earnings.” (Emphasis supplied.)
Obviously, also there is no necessary relationship between percentage of physical disability and loss of earning capacity.
In A.R.S. § 23-1044, subdivisions C, D and E, quoted supra, note 1, the word “disability” means “disability for work.” This clearly has been the meaning ascribed by the Legislature since the promulgation of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. It does not mean “physical impairment” or “earning capacity disability”, terms frequently used by the majority in their opinion.
*487In 1925, by Chapter 83 of the Laws of 1925, the Legislature enacted a Workmen’s Compensation Act. Subdivision B of § 70 pertained to total disabilities. Subdivision C2 pertained to partial disabilities. In C, 2, (a) through (v) the Legislature specified how certain enumerated injuries would be compensated; (w) and (x) contain the legislative directions on how all other injuries not specified would be compensated. These latter injuries have been variously described over the years as “nonseheduled” or “odd lot.”
A simple reading of paragraph (w) settles beyond the possibility of a doubt that from the beginning the compensation allowed was for injuries causing “disability for work.” The Legislature said that if there was an unscheduled injury in which there was a “disability for work” an employee received 55% of the difference between his monthly wage before the accident and the monthly wage he was able to earn thereafter. So, conversely, if a workman was injured and incurred a disability but not a disability for work, he received nothing. Workmen’s Compensation is not awarded for being hurt, but as the Legislature directed for disability for work or, as the cases have often said, interchangeably, for loss of earning capacity.
In the second paragraph of (w), since there is no reason to believe the Legislature intended to shift the meaning of the word “disability” to something other than “disability for work,” it must be accepted that the word was used in the same context as in the preceding paragraph. The second paragraph of (w) must therefore be read as:
In determining the percentage of disability for work, consideration shall be given, among other things, to any previous disability for work.
Likewise, paragraph (x) must mean:
Where there is a previous disability for work, as a loss of one eye, one hand, one foot, or any other previous disability for work, the percentage of disability for work for a subsequent injury shall be, etc.
If the Legislature intended to change the meaning of “disability” to “earning capacity disability” or “physical impairment”, it undoubtedly would have said so in order to avoid the obvious possibility of confusion.
That it was not an earning capacity disability is made absolutely clear three years later in the Revised Code of 1928, § 1438.3 *488Paragraph (w), after 1928, can only be understood to mean that where the injury causes disability for work, in determining the percentage of disability for work, consideration shall be given to any previous disability for work and that this must be deducted from the workman’s entire disability for work in order to arrive at his compensation. An injured workman who had a previous disability for work was not to be paid what a perfect workman could have earned.
In 1939, the Legislature amended the compensation act. Laws 1939, Ch. 28, § 11. No significant changes were made in the previously quoted language except that the paragraphs were renumbered. Then in 1953, the Legislature deleted this language: 4
“ * * * the difference between his average monthly wages before the accident and the monthly wages he is able to earn thereafter * *
and this language was added in its place:
“ * * * the difference between his average monthly wages before the accident and the amount which represents his reduced monthly earning capacity resulting from such disability * *
and in the next subdivision, this language:
“In determining the percentage of disability * *
was changed to:
“In determining the amount which represents the reduced monthly earning capacity for the purposes of subsection (c) * * * »
The difference between an “earning capacity disability” and a “disability for work” can be readily illustrated. A judge could suffer the loss of one eye while working and have a disability for work but no earning capacity disability. He would be compensated under A.R.S. § 23-1044(B)(16) or (17). If the judge lost his second eye while working, becoming totally blind, he might be wholly, 100% incapacitated, disabled for work. He would therefore be compensated under A.R.S. § 23-1044(C), (D) and (E) by deducting the percentage of disability for work occasioned by the first injury from the total disability. (He had already been compensated for the first loss.) In Alsbrooks’ case, the percentage of disability for work caused by his injuries in *489World War II must be deducted from the total of his disability for work as it existed after the accident of May 25, 1972. It is not the loss of earning capacity which Alsbrooks suffered because of his war injuries, it is his disability for work deducted as a percentage from the total of his disability for work. Alsbrooks as a union employee may not have had an actual earning capacity loss. He had, however, most certainly previously suffered some disability for work. Subsection D of § 23-1044 requires that the previous disability for work must be taken into consideration in “determining the amount which represents the reduced monthly earning capacity for the purposes of subsection C.” Whether Alsbrooks had a reduction in earning capacity is not established by the evidence.
By statute, as written by the Legislature, Alsbrooks does not have to show that he had a disability which caused an earning capacity loss, only that he had a previous disability for work. He then must be rated under subdivisions C, D and E. By the language of the statute there need only be shown the extent that Alsbrooks’ present injury, when combined with his previous disability for work, reduced his -monthly earning capacity. He must then be compensated by the statutory formula of deducting the percentage of previous disability for work from the percentage of total disability for work.
For the foregoing reasons, I cannot agree with the majority that “when the statute says ‘disability’ it means earning capacity disability * * I will withhold further comment until an actual controversy arises over which, under the Constitution, this Court has jurisdiction.

. “B. Disability shall be deemed permanent partial disability if caused by any of the following specified injuries, and compensation of fifty-five per cent of the average monthly wage of *485the injured employee, in addition to the compensation for temporary total disability, shall be paid for the period given in the following schedule:
1. For the loss of a thumb, fifteen months.
2. For the loss of a first finger, commonly called the index finger, nine months.
3. For the loss of a second finger, seven months.
4. For the loss of a third finger, five months.
5. For the loss of the fourth finger, commonly called the little finger, four months.
6. The loss of a distal or second phalange of the thumb or the distal or third phalange of the first, second, third or fourth finger, shall be considered equal to the loss of one-half of the thumb or finger, and compensation shall be one-half of the amount specified for the loss of the entire thumb or finger.
7. The loss of more than one phalange of the thumb or finger shall be considered as the loss of the entire finger or thumb, but in no event shall the amount received for more than one finger exceed the amount provided for the loss of a hand.
8. For the loss of a great toe, seven months.
9. For the loss of a toe other than the great toe, two and one-half months.
10. The loss of the first phalange of any toe shall be considered equal to the loss of one-half of the toe and compensation shall be one-half of the amount for one toe.
11. The loss of more than one phalange shall be considered as the loss of the entire toe.
12. For the loss of a major hand, fifty months, or of a minor hand, forty months.
13. For the loss of a major arm, sixty months, or of a minor arm, fifty months.
14. For the loss of a foot, forty months.
15. For the loss of a leg, fifty months.
16. For the loss of an eye by enucleation, thirty months.
17. For the permanent and complete loss of sight in one eye without enucleation, twenty-five months.
18. For permanent and complete loss of hearing in one ear, twenty months.
19. For permanent and complete loss of hearing in both ears, sixty months.
20. The permanent and complete loss of the use of a finger, toe, arm, hand, foot or leg may be deemed the same as the loss of any such member by separation.
21. For the partial loss of use of a finger, toe, arm, hand, foot, leg, or partial loss of sight or hearing, fifty per cent of the average monthly wage during that proportion of the number of months in the foregoing schedule provided for the complete loss of use of such member, or complete loss of sight or hearing, which the partial loss of use thereof bears to the total loss of use of such member or total loss of sight or hearing.
22. For permanent disfigurement about the head or face, which shall include injury to or loss of teeth, the commission may, in accordance with the provisions of § 23-1047, allow such sum for compensation thereof as it deems just, in accordance with the proof submitted, for a period, not to exceed eighteen months.
C. In cases not enumerated in subsection B of this section, where the injury causes permanent partial disability for work, the employee shall receive during such disability compensation equal to fifty-five per cent of the difference between his average monthly wages before the accident and the amount which represents his reduced monthly earning cápacity resulting from the disability, but the payment shall not continue after the disability ends, or the death of the injured person, and in case the partial disability begins after a period of total disability, the period of total disability shall be deducted from the total period of compensation.
D. In determining the amount which represents the reduced monthly earning capacity for the purposes of subsection C of this section, consideration shall be given, among other things, to any previous disability, the occupational history of the injured employee, the nature and extent of the physical disability, the type of work the injured employee is able to perform subsequent to the injury, any wages received for work performed subsequent to the injury and the age of the employee at the time of injury.
E. In case there is a previous disability, as the loss of one eye, one hand, one foot or otherwise, the percentage of disability for a subsequent injury shall be determined by computing the percentage of the entire disability and deducting therefrom the percentage of the previous disability as it existed at the time of the subsequent injury.”

. LAWS 1925, CH. 83, § 70
“(C) PARTIAL DISABILITY
1. Temporary partial disability: For temporary partial disability, sixty-five (65) per cent, of the difference between the wages earned before the injury and the wages which the injured person is able to earn thereafter, for a period not to exceed sixty (60) months during the period of said disability.
2. In case of any of the following specified injuries, the disability caused thereby shall be deemed a permanent partial disability, and compensation of fifty-five (55) per cent, of the average monthly wage shall be paid in addition to the compensation paid for temporary total disability for the period named in the following schedule:
(a) * * *
******
(w) Where the injury causes partial disability for work, the employee shall receive, during such disability, compensation equal to fifty-five (55) per cent, of the difference between his average monthly wages before the accident and the monthly wages he is able to earn thereafter. In no case shall the payments continue after the disability ends, or death of the injured person and in case the partial disability begins after a period of total disability the period of total disability shall be deducted from such total period of compensation.
In determining the percentage of disability, consideration shall be given, among other things, to any previous disability, the occupation of the injured employee, the nature of the physical injury, and the age of the employee at the time of the injury.
(x) Where there is a previous disability, as the loss of one eye, one hand, one foot, or any other previous disability, the percentage of disability for a subsequent injury shall be determined by computing the percentage of the entire disability and deducting therefrom the percentage of the previous disability as it existed at the time of the subsequent injury.”

. The second paragraph in (w) was consolidated with (x) in this fashion:
“(w) where the injury causes partial disability for work, the employee shall receive, during such disability, compensation equal to fifty-five per cent of the difference between his average monthly wages before the accident and the monthly wages he is able to *488eam thereafter, but the payments shall not continue after the disability ends, or death of the injured person, and in case the partial disability begins after a period of total disability the period of total disability shall be deducted from such total period of compensation.
In determining the percentage of disability, consideration shall be given, among other things, to any previous disability, the occupation of the injured employee, the nature of the physical injury, and the age of the employee at the time of the injury. Where there is a previous disability, as the loss of one eye, one hand, one foot, or any other previous disability, the percentage of disability for a subsequent injury shall be determined by computing the percentage of the entire disability and deducting therefrom the percentage of the previous disability as it existed at the time of the subsequent injury.”

. LAWS 1953, CH. 55, § 1
“(c) In cases, not enumerated in subsection (b), where the injury causes permanent partial disability for work the employee shall receive, during such disability, compensation equal to fifty-five (55) per cent of the difference between his average monthly wages before the accident and the amount which represents his reduced monthly earning capacity resulting from such disability, but the payment shall not continue after the disability ends, or the death of the injured person, and in case the partial disability begins after a period of total disability, the period of total disability shall be deducted from such total period of compensation.
(d) In determining the amount which represents the reduced monthly earning capacity for the purposes of subsection (c), consideration shall be given, among other things, to any previous disability, the occupational history of the injured employee, the nature and extent of the physical disability, the type of work the injured employee is able to perform subsequent to the injury, any wages received for work performed subsequent to the injury, and the age of the employee at the time of injury.
(e) In case there is a previous disability, as the loss of one eye, one hand, one foot, or otherwise, the percentage of disability for a subsequent injury shall be determined by computing the percentage of the entire disability and deducting therefrom the percentage of the previous disability as it existed at the time of the subsequent injury."