Gly Construction Co. v. Davis

GILBERT, Chief Judge. Although it undoubtedly can be phrased more eloquently, the question before us is whether the employer-insurer, appellant, pays the claimant $45,621 or $18,675. The specific issue posited to us by the appeal is stated as: ⁶⁰⁵ “When dealing with ‘specific injuries’ as opposed to ‘other cases,’ can the Workmen’s Compensation Commission award a percentage of disability which is greater than the highest medical evidence in the record?” If that were all that were before us, we would summarily affirm on the ground that we do not review a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission but rather that of the circuit court. Since the instant matter was tried de novo before the court, what did or did not happen before the Commission is of no direct consequence to us.

Nevertheless, rather than summarily affirm the trial court, we shall restate the question: Did the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County improperly uphold an award by the Workmen’s Compensation Commission of 100 percent disability of claimant’s left hand, which award exceeded the amount of disability established by the medical evidence? Little need be said about the facts insofar as they relate to the accidental injury. It is enough to know that Louis J. Davis’s left hand was severely and extensively injured in the course of his employment. As a result of that injury, Davis was subjected to surgery.

His index and medius or second finger were removed. Extensive portions of flesh and bone were cut from his hand. His left thumb almost totally lacks mobility and does not function in opposition to the remaining two fingers, and those fingers have limited movement. Davis cannot close his fist or use his hand to any extent.

He complains of pain when he attempts to use the hand and states that he is unable to grip anything with the hand. Davis did testify that he drives a vehicle and while doing so, he occasionally “lays” his damaged hand upon the steering wheel. One doctor who examined Davis for the appellants, Gly Construction Company and Employers Insurance of Wausau, reported that Davis had sustained a “permanent impairment of fifty percent of the left hand.” Davis’s attor ⁶⁰⁶ ney referred him to another doctor who said that Davis had “a 90 percent permanent partial disability of his left hand.” Based on the medical reports, the appellants conclude that the circuit court was wrong in affirming the Commission. Reduced to its simplest form, what the appellants aver is that at the most Davis should not have been awarded compensation for more than 90 percent loss of the use of his left hand.

To reach that conclusion, the appellants seemingly equate anatomical loss with loss of use. The finding by the trial court and the Commission of 100 percent loss of use by Davis of his left hand resulted in an award to Davis of compensation for 333 weeks. That compensation award had a dollar value of $45,621. Had the court found but 90 percent loss of use of the hand, that finding would have eliminated 25 weeks of benefits under Md.Ann.Code art. 101, § 36(3), and 83 weeks of “serious disability” payments under § 36(4a), thus reducing the dollar sum payable to Davis to $18,675.

Moreover, the payments made under § 36(3) are at a lower rate than under § 36(4a). We are unable to find within the workmen’s compensation statute, Md.Ann.Code art. 101, any words that expressly or implicitly limit the Commission, or the court on appeal, to consider only medical evaluation. See art. 101, § 11. The function of the Commission initially is to determine the extent of loss of use, and hence the percentage of disability, and not merely to adopt medical evaluations of anatomical impairment.

Cf. art. 101, § 15 (compensation is payable because of employee’s “disability or death”) (emphasis supplied). As Professor Larson has noted: “It has been stated repeatedly that the distinctive feature of the compensation system ... is that its awards (apart from medical benefits) ... are made not for physical injury as such, but for ‘disability’ produced for such injury. The central problem, then, becomes that of analyzing