Court Opinion

ID: 9796170
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 03:51:01.519987+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:48:44.017419
License: Public Domain

Chief Justice MULLARKEY,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the majority’s opinion holding that the 1999 amendments to the permanent partial disability provision of the workers’ compensation statute, subsections 8 — 42—107(7)(b)(I), (II) and (III), C.R.S. (2005), prohibit a physician from including a claimant’s mental disability in the claimant’s impairment rating for purposes of the cap on benefits imposed by section 8-42-107.5, C.R.S. (2005). For purposes of this dissent, I will refer to the first statute as “the 1999 amendments” and the second statute as “the benefits cap” provision.
Nothing in the express language, legislative history, or surrounding circumstances of either statute requires the result reached by the majority. Accordingly, I would hold that benefits caps must be calculated on the basis of all benefits received by a claimant regardless of the physical or mental character of the claimant’s injuries.
FACTS
Petitioner Debra Dillard suffered serious injuries to her head, cervical spine, and hip when she fell at work. During her recovery from the accident, she was unable to work and received temporary total disability benefits. After she reached maximum medical improvement, she was found to have a permanent partial disability. This case arises because the total amount of money Dillard may receive for both temporary and permanent benefits is limited by a statutory cap based on her impairment rating.
After conducting an independent medical examination, a physician determined that Dillard’s impairment rating was 29%. The doctor assigned a 23% whole person impairment rating for her cervical spine injury, 2% for her hip injury, and 5% for her mental impairment. The percentages assigned to her hip *415and mental injuries reflect the doctor’s conversion of those injuries to a whole person impairment rating; no such conversion was required for the spinal injury. Specifically, the 5% impairment rating was calculated using the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment Permanent Work-Related Mental Impairment Rating Work Sheet that directs physicians to determine a claimant’s mental impairment per the American Medical Association’s Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment 254-56 (3d ed. Rev. 1990) (“AMA Guides”), and convert the rating according to a table contained in the worksheet where he arrived at the 5% figure. See Rule 12-5, 7 C.C.R. 1101-3 (2005); § 8-42-101(3)(a)(I), C.R.S. (2005) (explaining the director’s role to review impairment rating guidelines based on both the AMA Guides and promulgated department rules).
The doctor then “combined” the three percentages using the Combined Values Chart from the AMA Guides to arrive at a figure of 29% that was used to determine the applicable benefits cap. It is important to recognize that the word “combine” has a technical meaning when used in connection with the AMA Guides; it does not mean the simple arithmetic addition of the percentages. If it were, the physician would have fixed Dillard’s impairment rating at 30% rather than 29%.
Dillard’s total award for both temporary and permanent benefits is approximately $131,500. With her 29% rating, Dillard’s total benefits are capped at $120,000. Under the majority opinion, her rating falls to 25% and her benefits are capped at $60,000.
ANALYSIS
The majority contends that the 1999 amendments are unambiguous and compel the conclusion that mental injuries must be excluded from the calculation of the applicable benefits cap. Maj. op. at 411-412. As my discussion above of the word “combine” illustrates, the language is far from unambiguous. The 1999 amendments provide in relevant part:
(I) _ scheduled injuries shall be compensated as provided on the schedule and nonscheduled injuries shall be compensated as medical impairment benefits, and that, when an injured worker sustains both scheduled and nonscheduled injuries, the losses shall be compensated on the schedule for scheduled injuries and the nonscheduled injuries shall be compensated as medical impairment benefits. The general assembly further determines and declares that mental or emotional stress shall be compensated pursuant to section 8-41-301(2) and shall not be combined with a scheduled or a nonscheduled injury.... (Ill) Mental or emotional stress shall be compensated pursuant to 8^41-301(2) and shall not be combined with a scheduled or nonscheduled injury.
§ 8-42-107(7)(b)(I), (III). The benefits cap provision states:
[n]o claimant whose impairment rating is twenty-five percent or less may receive more than sixty thousand dollars from combined temporary disability payments and permanent partial disability payments. No claimant whose impairment rating is greater than twenty-five percent may receive more than one hundred twenty thousand dollars from combined temporary disability payments and permanent partial disability payments.
§ 8-42-107.5.
The starting point for analyzing any statute is the text of the statute itself. To address the majority’s contention that the 1999 amendments control the calculation of the benefits cap, I first look to the language of the two statutes. The language quoted above shows that neither statute references the other. As the later-enacted statute, the 1999 amendments would be the logical place for the General Assembly to insert language applying the strictures of the 1999 amendments to the benefits cap, but it did not do so. Recognizing that the express language of the statutes does not resolve the relationship between the two acts, I must turn to other aids to construe the statutes.
The 1999 amendments were enacted in House Bill 99-1157, entitled “An act concerning the reestablishment of an exclusive schedule for permanent partial disability under the workers’ compensation law, and in *416connection therewith increasing the amount of benefits received under the schedule and limiting benefits for mental stress.” H.B. 99-1157, Ch. 103, see. 1, § 8-42-107, 1999 Sess. Laws 298, 299. It amended the permanent partial disabilities section by adding subsections 8 — 42—107(7)(b)(1), (II), and (III) to provide that each type of injury, both physical and mental, is to be compensated separately. See id. House Bill 99-1157 did not address temporary disability benefits, and did not amend the benefits cap limiting the amount of money any claimant can receive for temporary and permanent benefits related to the same accident. As noted above, the bill had a narrow title and was limited to permanent partial disability awards. These facts indicate that the legislature did not intend the 1999 amendments to apply to the benefits cap provision.
Mental impairment is compensated separately from both scheduled and nonscheduled physical injuries. Section 8-41-301(2), C.R.S. (2005), was added by the legislature in 1991, the same year as the benefits cap statute, and allows a worker to recover both temporary and permanent disability benefits upon a finding of mental impairment. This court determined that section 8-41-301(2)(b) limited compensation for permanent disability benefits to twelve weeks, but that the same section did not limit temporary disability benefits. City of Thornton v. Replogle, 888 P.2d 782 (Colo.1995). Mental injuries are accorded their own rating as explained in the AMA Guides. See AMA Guides, at 241. A mental injury rating, like a scheduled injury rating, is convertible to a whole person impairment rating according to the Colorado Code of Regulations on workers’ compensation. Rule 12-5, 7 C.C.R. 1101-3 (2005).
The benefits caps provision, section 8-42-107.5, was enacted in 1991 to limit the total award a claimant receives for temporary and permanent partial disability. The differentiated caps represent a legislative attempt to distinguish between workers who are injured more and less seriously. See Colorado AFL-CIO v. Donlon, 914 P.2d 396, 403-04 (1996); Hearing on S.B. 218 First Conference Comm., 58th Gen. Assembly, 2d Reg. Sess. (Hearing Tape 91-32 May 3, 1991). The benefits cap is applied after a claimant’s temporary and permanent disability has been calculated. All injuries must be converted into whole person impairment ratings in order to reflect the extent to which an injury impacts the claimant’s past wage loss and future ability to earn wages. See Donlon, 914 P.2d at 404.
Construing the benefits caps statute, the Industrial Claim Appeals Office (“ICAO”) has held that the term “impairment rating” is not defined and is ambiguous. See Schank v. Wizard, W.C. No. 4-497-494 (I.C.A.O. Sept. 19, 2003); Quackenbush v. Tenant Roofing Inc., W.C. No. 4-218-272 (I.C.A.O. June 19, 1998). In Quackenbush, the ICAO addressed whether a claimant’s right arm injury should be treated as a 29% extremity impairment or converted to a 17% whole person impairment for purposes of the application of section 8-42-107.5, the benefits cap provision. W.C. No. 4-218-272. The ICAO held that the term “impairment rating” was ambiguous, and it determined that converting the extremity impairment rating into a whole person impairment was necessary in order to prevent giving greater benefits to less seriously injured workers in contravention of the legislative purpose behind the benefits cap provision. Id.
Likewise, in Schank, the ICAO held that, after the enactment of the 1999 amendments, the term “impairment rating” as used in the benefits cap provision remained ambiguous. The Schank panel rejected the employer’s theory that the 1999 amendments compelled the conclusion that scheduled disabilities were irrelevant to the application of the benefits cap provision, and held that where a claimant sustained both scheduled and nonscheduled injuries, the scheduled injury was to be converted into a whole person impairment rating and combined with the nonscheduled injury to determine the appropriate benefits cap in accordance with Quackenbush. Schank, W.C. No. 4-497-494. Rejecting the employer’s theory, the panel noted that Mountain City Meat Co. v. Oqueda, 919 P.2d 246 (Colo.1996), and Quacken-bush remain viable for the proposition that the 1999 amendments did not alter the statutory requirement that medical impairment *417ratings be completed in accordance •with the AMA Guides as expressly authorized in section 8-42 — 101(3.7). Schank, W.C. No. 4-497-494; see also § 8-42-101(8.7) (“impairment ratings used under articles 40 to 47 of this title shall be based on the revised third edition of the American Medical Association Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment”).
These decisions demonstrate that the benefits cap provision is separate and apart from the 1999 amendments that sought to overrule our decision in Mountain City Meat which expanded awards for permanent partial disability compensation where a worker sustains both scheduled and nonscheduled injuries. The decisions also support the practice of adhering to the AMA Guides, as directed by the workers’ compensation statute and division regulations, to calculate and combine all impairment ratings. See AMA Guides, at xix-xx (“The Guides continue to espouse the philosophy that all physical and mental impairments affect the whole person, and therefore, all impairment ratings should be combined.”); § 8-42-107(8)(c), C.R.S. (2005) (“the authorized treating physician shall determine a medical impairment rating as a percentage of the whole person based on the ... [AMA Guides].”). The majority contends that rather than interpreting the 1999 amendments to merely undo the effect of our Mountain City Meat decision, the amendments also prevent the inclusion of a mental impairment rating to calculate the benefits cap because the term “combine” has “special meaning.” Maj. op. at 412.
The term “combine” is not defined in the statute and, in context, “combine” is ambiguous because it sometimes has a technical meaning within the workers’ compensation scheme. See Mountain City Meat, 919 P.2d at 252 (discussing ambiguity in statutes). Specifically, the 1999 amendments clarify that mental injuries are limited to the compensation outlined in section 8-41-301(2), and that mental or emotional stress “shall not be combined with a scheduled or nonscheduled injury.” § 8 — 42—107(7)(b)(Ili). Subsection (I) states that scheduled and nonscheduled injuries shall be compensated separately, and iterates that mental injuries are not to be “combined” with scheduled or nonscheduled injuries.
The majority states that the “key” to its analysis is a phrase in subsection 8-42-107(7)(b)(III) stating that “mental or emotional stress shall not be combined with a scheduled or nonscheduled injury.” See maj. op. at 412. The majority points out, and I agree, that the same phrase does not appear in subsection (7)(b)(II). Describing the phrase as “unique,” the majority declares that it “must have meaning.” Id. That meaning, according to the majority, is that the phrase applies to the benefits cap statute, and mental stress cannot be included in calculating benefits subject to the cap. Id.
In my view, the phrase has meaning where the legislature placed it in the statute, and it has no application to the benefits cap provision. There was no need for the drafters to include identical language in subsection (7)(b)(II) and (III). Scheduled injuries are compensated “solely” on the basis of the schedule and nonscheduled injuries are compensated “solely” as medical impairment benefits. See § 8 — 42-107(7)(b)(II). If a claimant has both scheduled and nonscheduled injuries, “the losses shall be compensated on the schedule and the nonscheduled injuries shall be compensated as medical impairment benefits.” § 8 — 42-107(7)(b)(I). When subsections (I), (II), and (III) are read together, the result is that scheduled, nonscheduled, and mental impairment benefits must be calculated separately and cannot be combined for purposes of permanent partial disability. Contrary to the majority, I cannot read subsection (III) of the 1999 amendments as legislative intent to amend the benefits cap provision.
In context, the prohibition against “combining” mental injuries with the physical injuries may mean either that (1) mental injuries cannot be added together with a scheduled or nonscheduled injury for purposes of permanent partial disability compensation, or (2) mental injuries cannot be included in the calculation of the “impairment rating” that determines, the appropriate benefits cap. The former interpretation conforms to the context of the 1999 amendments and fits within the narrow title of the bill limited to permanent partial disabil*418ity benefits. So understood, the amendment explains the proper way to calculate permanent partial disability compensation, and does not affect the benefits cap provision. See § 8-42-107; see also In re Breene, 14 Colo. 401, 406, 24 P. 3, 4 (1890) (“If the title of a bill be limited to a particular subdivision of a general subject, the right to embody in the bill matters pertaining to the remaining subdivisions of such subject is relinquished.”). Applying the 1999 amendments to the benefits cap requires the court to speculate that the legislature intended to change the benefits cap provision without any express language tying the two separate provisions together. The majority’s interpretation also uses the 1999 amendments to create an implicit exception to the use of the AMA Guides in the benefits cap provision despite explicit directions to the contrary in sections 8-42-101(3.7) and 8-42-107(8). Such a reading renders the remaining provisions of the statute vulnerable to further statutory inconsistencies.
The legislative history of the 1999 amendments further supports my belief that no connection can be made between the amendments and the benefits cap. The testimony of the Senate sponsor of House Bill 99-1157, Senator Owen, and two supporters, John Berry, and Tim Jackson, shows that the bill’s purpose was to eliminate the possibility of combining mental impairment ratings with scheduled or nonscheduled injury ratings in order to receive a formula benefit for permanent partial disability. Senator Owen stated:
I think the heart of this bill ... is whether on scheduled or nonscheduled injuries, you consider mental impairment .... [T]he question is, should [mental impairment] be compensated along with the injury, or compensated as separate ...
Remarks of Senator Owen before the Senate State Veterans & Military Affairs Comm., 62d General Assembly, 1st Reg. Sess. (Hearing Tape 99-8-D Feb. 7, 1999). Likewise, proponent John Berry stated:
That’s what the bill does .... It also [inaudible] the way with what we fear as being a huge loophole, and that is allowing someone who has a scheduled benefit combined with a mental impairment benefit to go off the schedule and get a formula benefit .... [The bill] really is to ... prevent someone from indicating that they have a, their [sic] depressed about their scheduled injury and then using that depression to get a formula award.
Id. (statements of John Berry). Proponent Tim Jackson stated:
This bill is designed to eliminate the mental stress award on physical injuries in worker’s compensation, similar to the legislation that passed the full legislature in the last two sessions.
Id. (statements of Tim Jackson). The transcripts of the hearing on House Bill 99-1157 reveal that only a single person, a workers’ compensation attorney testifying in opposition to the bill, was concerned with the possible connection between the enactment and the benefits cap statute. See Testimony of Bob Turner before the House Business Affairs & Labor Committee, 62d General Assembly, 1st Reg. Sess. (Hearing Tape 99-5-d Jan. 26, 1999). The testimony of a bill’s opponent, however, is not indicative of legislative intent.
Finally, we must remember that the workers’ compensation law serves an important public purpose. It must be “liberally construed to accomplish its humanitarian purpose of assisting injured workers and their families.” Mountain City Meat, 919 P.2d at 252-53 (quoting Colorado Counties, Inc. v. Davis, 801 P.2d 10, 11 (Colo.App.1990), aff'd sub nom. County Workers Compensation Pool v. Davis, 817 P.2d 521 (Colo.1991)). Including mental disability in the “impairment rating” for purposes of the benefits cap provides fair compensation to seriously injured workers like Debra Dillard. Excluding mental disability rolls the clock back to the time when the state did not compensate mental disability.
For all of these reasons, I respectfully dissent from the majority’s opinion and would reverse the decision of the court of appeals.
I am authorized to state that Justice MARTINEZ joins in this dissent.