Allen v. E. S. Adkins & Co.

Marbury, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Clifton Allen appeals from an order of the Circuit Court for Worcester County affirming an order of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission which had re ⁴¹⁰ jected Allen’s claim for mutilation and disfigurement of his eyelid in addition to compensation for the enucleation of his eye. While working as an employee of the appellee, E. S. Adkins & Company (Adkins), the claimant Allen was injured on February 12, 1965, when he was struck across the left eye by a bush. As a result of this accident, Allen suffered a total loss of vision in his left eye, which was later followed by enucleation of the eye.

As a result of the enucleation, there was injury to a nerve which caused the eyelid to droop. This condition produced an apparent and clear change in the appellant’s appearance and facial expression. Following the accident, Allen filed a Workmen’s Compensation claim. By an order dated August 3, 1965, the Workmen’s Compensation Commission (Commission) determined that the appellant had suffered a total loss of vision in his left eye and that he was permanently partially incapacitated as a result of the injury.

Because of this finding, the Commission ordered that compensation at the rate of $25.00 per week, payable weekly, be paid to Allen by his employer, Adkins, and by its insurer, the appellee Utica Mutual Insurance Company, for a period of two hundred weeks. Subsequent to this award, on March 29, 1967, the Commission held a hearing on the issue of the nature and extent of mutilation and disfigurement. By order dated April 12, 1967, the Commission found that Allen had no compensable mutilation as a result of his injuries on February 12, 1965, and affirmed its order of August 3, 1965. Allen appealed this adverse determination' to the Circuit Court for Worcester County.

The lower court had no difficulty in finding that Allen had, suffered a disfigurement. However, the court held that since the disfigurement resulted from an injury for which compensation had already been allowed, the Workmen’s Compensation Act allowed no further compensation for the disfigurement. From the court’s opinion and order dated November 18. 1968, Allen has appealed to this Court. ⁴¹¹ The issue on appeal is whether the lower court erred in affirming the order of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission which rejected Allen’s claim for mutilation and disfigurement of the eyelid in addition to compensation awarded for the loss of the eye. This Court concludes that the lower court made a proper determination and its order will be affirmed.

The pertinent provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, Code (1964 Repl. Vol.), Article 101, Section 36, are as follows: “Amounts to be paid employees and dependents; (3) Permanent partial disability — Specific injuries. . . . (b) . . . Eye — For the loss of an eye, two hundred weeks.

(f) For other mutilations and disfigurements not hereinbefore provided for, compensation shall be allowed in the discretion of the Commission, for not more than one hundred weeks, as the Commission may fix, in each case having due regard to the character of the