FERMO v SUPERLINE PRODUCTS

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 13649 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1977 VICTOR FERMO, Claimant and Respondent, -vsSUPERLINE PRODUCTS, Employer, and AETNA CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: Workers' Compensation Court Honorable William E. Hunt, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Anderson, Symmes, Forbes, Peete and Brown, Billings, Montana Richard F. Cebull argued, Billings, Montana For Respondent: Hoyt and Bottomly, Great Falls, Montana John C. Hoyt argued, Great Falls, Montana Submitted: Decided : September 20, 1977 JAN 1 0 1B 9 M r . J u s t i c e Gene B . Daly delivered t h e Opinion of t h e Court: O March 28, 1975, claimant f i l e d a claim f o r compensation n with t h e Montana Division of Workers' Compensation, a s a r e s u l t of an i n j u r y sustained by claimant i n t h e course and scope of h i s employment on February 26, 1975. Claimant received temporary t o t a l d i s a b i l i t y b e n e f i t s f o r t h e period February 28, 1975 through August 24, 1975, approximately when he returned t o h i s work. I n s u r e r o f f e r e d claimant $1,452 a s a compromise s e t t l e m e n t f o r c l a i m a n t ' s impairment. O n July 28, 1976, claimant f i l e d a p e t i t i o n f o r hearing with t h e Workers' Compensation Court. The matter came f o r t r i a l before t h e Workers' Compensation Court on August 25, 1976. The Court issued f i n d i n g s of f a c t and conclu- s i o n s of law holding claimant e n t i t l e d t o a permanent p a r t i a l d i s a b i l i t y award of 125 weeks a t c l a i m a n t ' s permanent p a r t i a l d i s a b i l i t y r a t e of $60 per week, which equals t h e sum of $7,500. The Workers' Compensation Court ordered $7,500 t o be paid t o claimant i n a lump sum. The order was stayed, pending t h e i n s u r e r ' s appeal t o t h i s Court. The s o l e i s s u e on appeal i s whether o r n o t t h e r e i s subs t a n t i a l evidence t o support t h e workers' Compensation Court's f i n d i n g s t h a t claimant i s e n t i t l e d t o a permanent p a r t i a l d i s a b i l i t y award of $7,500. Claimant's occupation r e q u i r e s t h e loading and unloading of t r u c k s , e i t h e r by use of a f o r k l i f t o r manual l a b o r , and t h e occasional d r i v i n g of a semi-truck. O February 26, 1975, n claimant sustained an i n j u r y t o h i s l e f t w r i s t when a hack o r bundle of b r i c k f e l l on h i s l e f t arm. The i n j u r y aggravated a p r e e x i s t i n g i n j u r y , claimant having f r a c t u r e d h i s n a v i c u l a r bone some 20 years p r i o r t o t h e i n s t a n t i n j u r y . A s a r e s u l t of t h e r e c e n t w r i s t i n j u r y , claimant underwent a s u r g i c a l procedure known a s a r a d i a l styloidectomy i n A p r i l 1975. Claimant s t i l l complains of symptoms which, examining physicians a g r e e , might be remedied only by a w r i s t fusion. On December 30, 1975, a Great F a l l s orthopedic surgeon and c l a i m a n t ' s t r e a t i n g physician, evaluated c l a i m a n t ' s c o n d i t i o n .and r a t e d h i s d i s a b i l i t y : "He ( s i c ) permanent d i s a b i l i t y i s approximately 25% d i s a b i l i t y of t h e whole man." On January 22, 1976, a f t e r c o n s u l t a t i o n with t h e i n s u r e r , t h e t r e a t i n g orthopedic surgeon s e n t a l e t t e r t o i n s u r e r s t a t i n g : "The permanent p a r t i a l impairment of t h i s man's l e f t w r i s t amounts t o 11%. This - i s based on l o s s of motion. * * *" This e v a l u a t i o n was based on t h e American Medical A s s o c i a t i o n ' s Guide t o t h e Evaluation of Physical Impairment. O March 18, 1976, claimant was examined by a second physician n a t t h e request of t h e i n s u r e r , but no d i s a b i l i t y r a t i n g by t h i s second doctor i s found i n t h e record. Based upon t h e examining p h y s i c i a n ' s r a t i n g s of c l a i m a n t ' s d i s a b i l i t y , c l a i m a n t ' s counsel concluded t h e following p o t e n t i a l recoveries were a v a i l a b l e t o claimant and t h e s e options were presented t o t h e Workers' Compensation Court i n h i s b r i e f : Using t h e doc t o r ' s r a t i n g s a t claimant' s weekly permanent p a r t i a l r a t e of $60 t h e following computations were presented: " 1 of 1 % " 7% of "25% of "25% of the the the the upper whole upper whole extremity man equal extremity man equal equal 30.8 weeks o r $1,848.00 35 weeks o r $2,100.00 equals 70 weeks o r $4,200.00 125 weeks o r $7,500.00." The b a s i c d i s p u t e i s t h e i n s u r e r ' s contention t h a t claimant i s n o t e n t i t l e d t o a d i s a b i l i t y r a t i n g a s t o t h e "whole man" when c l a i m a n t ' s d i s a b i l i t y i s l i m i t e d t o t h e w r i s t , one extremity. Thus, t h e i s s u e becomes whether a claimant who s u s t a i n s an i n d u s t r i a l i n j u r y t o an extremity of t h e body, i s l i m i t e d i n h i s claim f o r compensation f o r permanent p a r t i a l d i s a b i l i t y b e n e f i t s t o t h e s p e c i f i e d i n j u r y s t a t u t e , s e c t i o n 92-709, R.C.M. 1947, o r whether a claimant i s a l s o e n t i t l e d t o permanent p a r t i a l d i s a b i l i t y b e n e f i t s under s e c t i o n 92-703.1, R.C.M. 1947, which provides f o r t h e payment of compensation f o r i n j u r y t o any member of t h e body, where t h e i n j u r y causes p a r t i a l d i s a b i l i t y . I n t h e i n s t a n t case i t i s argued by t h e i n s u r e r t h a t t h e claimant cannot c o l l e c t under s e c t i o n 92-703.1 because he has s u f f e r e d no l o s s i n earning c a p a c i t y and t h e record shows he i s earning more money a f t e r t h e i n j u r y , than before. The record a l s o c l e a r l y shows t h e doctor gave him a 25 percent r a t i n g of d i s a b i l i t y based on the whole man. This Court on t h e s e f a c t s holds t h a t an award c a l c u l a t e d s o l e l y i n terms of a percentage d i s a b i l i t y f i g u r e a p p l i e d t o previous earnings w i l l s t a n d , r e g a r d l e s s of whether a c t u a l post i n j u r y earnings a r e g r e a t e r than before t h e i n j u r y . s e c t i o n 92-703.1, This w i l l n o t b a r a recovery under a s long a s o t h e r evidence s u f f i c i e n t l y e s t a b - l i s h i n g t h e degree of d i s a b i l i t y appears i n t h e record. Actual post i n j u r y earnings a r e but one item of evidence t o be considered i n t h e d e t e r m i r a t i o n of f u t u r e earning c a p a c i t y . This Court i n Shaffer v. Midland Empire Packing Co., (1953), 213, 127 Mont. 2111 259 P.2d 340, 342, s e t out t h e t e s t f o r l o s s of earning c a p a c i t y : *** "The t e s t i s not whether t h e r e has been a l o s s of earnings o r income caused by t h e i n j u r y , b u t r a t h e r has t h e r e been a l o s s of earning capac i t y - - a l o s s of a b i l i t y t o earn i n t h e open l a b o r market ." I n Midland-Ross Corporation v. I n d u s t r i a l Commission, (1971), 107 Ariz. 311, 486 P.2d 793, t h e c o u r t h e l d t h a t evidence t h a t claimant was required t o work i n pain r e b u t t e d the presumption of no l o s s of earning c a p a c i t y r a i s e d by c l a i m a n t ' s r e t u r n t o h i s former employment. The r a t i o n a l e of t h e Arizona c a s e extends t o nonschedule permanent p a r t i a l i n j u r i e s t h e schedule-injury presumption t h a t a d e f i n i t e physical impairment w i l l probably sooner o r l a t e r have an adverse e f f e c t on earning c a p a c i t y . I t may be years before t h e e f f e c t i s f e l t . But a man with a s t i f f e n e d arm o r damaged back o r badly weakened eye w i l l presumably have a harder time doing h i s work w e l l and meeting t h e competition of young and healthy men. When a man stands b e f o r e t h e Workers' Compensation Court with proven permanent physical i n j u r i e s , f o r which t h e exclusive remedy c l a u s e has abolished a l l p o s s i b i l i t y of common-law damages, i t i s n o t j u s t i f i a b l e t o t e l l him he has undergone no impairment of earning c a p a c i t y , s o l e l y on t h e s t r e n g t h of c u r r e n t pay checks. Usually t h e r e b u t t i n g evidence a t t a c k s t h e post i n j u r y wage i t s e l f and shows t h a t i t s s i z e i s an u n f a i r c r i t e r i o n of c a p a c i t y . U n r e l i a b i l i t y of p o s t i n j u r y earnings may be due t o a number of variables : 1. Increase i n g e n e r a l wage l e v e l s s i n c e t h e a c c i d e n t . 2. Claimant's own maturity o r t r a i n i n g . 3. Longer hours worked by t h e claimant a f t e r t h e a c c i d e n t . 4. Payment of wages d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e t o c a p a c i t y t o work o u t of sympathy t o claimant. The u l t i m a t e o b j e c t i v e of t h e d i s a b i l i t y t e s t i s by discounting t h e above v a r i a b l e s t o determine t h e wage t h a t would have been paid i n t h e open l a b o r market under normal employment conditions t o claimant a s i n j u r e d , taking wage l e v e l s , hours of work, and c l a i m a n t ' s age and s t a t e of t r a i n i n g a s of e x a c t l y t h e same period used f o r c a l c u l a t i n g a c t u a l wages earned before t h e i n j u r y . Therefore, i t i s uniformily held without regard t o s t a t u t o r y v a r i a t i o n s i n the phrasing of t h e t e s t , t h a t a f i n d i n g of d i s a b i l i t y may stand even i f t h e r e i s evidence of some a c t u a l post i n j u r y earnings equaling o r exceeding those received before t h e accident. T r a v e l e r s Insurance Company v . McLellan, (1961), 288 F.2d 250. I n t h e i n s t a n t case t h e record c l e a r l y shows claimant i s performing t h e same work a s before and earning more money. ever, it a l s o discloses claimant's How- pain i s so extreme t h a t a t times he cannot conduct h i s work with t h e speed and e f f i c i e n c y he had before t h e a c c i d e n t . I t seems very l i k e l y a w r i s t f u s i o n w i l l be required t o r e l i e v e t h e pain which w i l l a f f e c t h i s body f u n c t i o n a s a whole. W note t h a t t h e Workers' Compensation Act e has always been l i b e r a l l y construed i n favor of t h e i n j u r e d workman. s e c t i o n 92-838, R.C.M. 1947; Rumsey v. Cardinal Petroleum, (1975), 166 Mont. 17, 530 P.2d 433; S t a t e ex r e l . Romero v. D i s t r i c t Court, (1973), 162 Mont. 358, 513 P.2d 265. Here, t h e r e seems t o be a l o s s of c a p a c i t y t o perform a s w e l l a s before t h e i n j u r y , and a l o s s of a b i l i t y t o compete and earn i n t h e open market. This q u a l i f i e s claimant under t h e standard t o be applied when determining h i s r i g h t t o be paid under s e c t i o n 92-703.1 f o r diminished earning c a p a c i t y . The workers' Compensation award made under s e c t i o n 92-703.1, -3 R.C.M. 1947, i s affirmed. Justice // L4 We Concur:

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.