Bethlehem Steel Co. v. Taylor

HENDERSON, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The appeal in this Workmen’s Compensation case challenges an award by the Commission on July 3, 1951 of a lump sum, without discount, payable from the terminal weeks of a prior award, in order to enable the claimant to pay off his indebtedness incurred in the purchase of an automobile. For the reasons stated in Bethlehem Steel Co. v. Jackson, 199 Md. 642 , 87 A. 2d 841 , just decided, we find error in the disallowance of discount. However, the appellant contends that the Commission abused its discretion in allowing any commutation into a lump sum on the ground that the testimony did not show that it was for the best interests of the claimant.

Taylor was injured on September 10, 1948, and after receiving an award for temporary total disability, received an award on June 29, 1950, for permanent partial disability in the partial loss of use of one hand, payable at the rate of $20.00 per week for 132% weeks. On May 10, 1951 the claimant applied for a lump sum award of $1,039.00 to prepay the installments on his automobile. It appeared that there was about $1,146.00 still due on the award for partial disability. Upon hearing, it was shown that the claimant purchased a used 1950 Chevrolet on July 17, 1950 after the partial disability award; that he was still employed by the Company ⁶⁵⁰ and making the same money as before the accident, from $60.00 to $70.00 a week.

He had never owned a car before, By paying off the balance he would save some $200.00 in finance charges and interest. He was twenty-four years old, with a wife and child. He bough1, the car “for going back and forth to work, and it is convenient to bring my wife to town and the kid”. He lived about a mile from the plant, and if he used the bus he would get there either an hour early or forty-five minutes late for his shift.

Since he worked two “turns” instead of three, he could not get regular rides with fellow-employees. He had no money in the bank, but owed no bills. He had kept up the finance payments on the car and paid off some $700.00. In discussing Section 50, Article 101 of the Code, we said in Petillo v. Stein, 184 Md. 644, 652 , 42 A. 2d 675 , 679: “The policy of the Statute does not favor lump-sum awards.

They are the exception rather than the rule. While necessary in some cases, they are not made of right. The Legislature wisely left the determination of when they should be