Bethlehem Steel Co. v. Hughes

Hammond, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The employer appeals from the affirmation by the Circuit Court of an award of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission to employee Hughes of ten weeks at $25.00 a week for disfigurement. Hughes was injured while at work when an acetylene torch ⁸ backfired and pieces of hose flew into his eyes. He lost one day’s work (for which he was awarded temporary total disability, not challenged) and was treated for four or five days by the company eye doctor.

Later he was examined by two other eye specialists and the reports of these three and Hughes’ brief testimony make up the record on which the Commission granted, and the Circuit Court affirmed, the award for disfigurement. The report of the company doctor found the vision in both eyes twenty-twenty and, in the left eye a “* * * small scar of the cornea just at the pupillary edge with slight discoloration” and expressly no facial or head disfigurement. The report of another specialist said in part: “On slit-lamp examination, there was a faint macula in Bowmans zone above the pupillary area at 11 and below the pupillary area at 6, right cornea. The central area was clear.

In the left cornea there was a small Coats ring outside the pupillary area at 6 and 8. The central pupillary area was clear. The anterior chambers were of normal depth and clear. The iris and lens were normal.

The optic discs were well defined and of pink color with small central cups. The vessels and macula were normal.” The third specialist said: “There are two fine, superficial opacities, pinpoint in size, on the cornea. These are located medially and below, and are well outside the pupillary area. They do not impede vision, and rest of slit-lamp examination shows normal findings.” Judge Menchine examined Hughes’ eyes in the course of the trial, and said: “* * * there is nothing in the appearance of the eyes themselves that would lead an individual to the conclusion that there was an unsightly condition in the appearance of the Claimant, and it would seem clear to the Court that if mutilation and disfigurement is reserved, in so far as compensation therefor is concerned, to cases in which the apparent outward appearance of the Claimant to other members of society was the proper and exclusive test of whether or not ⁹ compensation benefits for mutilations or disfigurements could be conferred, the ruling of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission would be clearly in error and its award or decision would be required to be reversed.” He held, however, that because subsequent examinations by doctors would disclose the existence of the scar on the eye, there was a potential handicap to Hughes’ obtention of future employment as to which the court could not substitute its discretion for that of the Commission.

We do not agree. As was pointed out in Bethlehem-Sparrows Point Shipyard, Inc. v. Damasiewicz, 187 Md. 474, 480, the Legislature granted the right to awards for disfigurement because “a disfigurement may constitute an economic loss in the sense of diminished power to produce, * * * may very probably have a harmful effect upon the ability of the disfigured person to retain or secure employment, * * * may render the person repulsive or offensive to the sight and displeasing to his employer, fellow employees and customers.” It was next said that there may be individual cases in which no actual effects eventuate but that the Legislature must deal with general tendencies. Then, after noting that on appeal from the Commission the court cannot exercise its own discretion as to a disfigurement award, but can only correct an abuse of the Commission’s discretion, Judge Delaplaine, for the Court, said: “ ‘Disfigurement’ is defined as that which impairs or injures the beauty, symmetry or appearance of a person or thing; that which renders unsightly, misshapen or imperfect, or deforms in some manner. * * * However, to justify an award under the disfigurement provision of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, there must be an outward observable scar or mutilation which tends to mar the appearance of the body. * * * For illustration, a puncture of the eardrum might result in serious injury, and yet not