Watts v. J. S. Young Co.

Barnes, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Frank E. Watts, Sr. (claimant) appeals from an order of the Superior Court of Baltimore City affirming an order of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission, which withheld an award to him for permanent partial disability of his right hand because the claimant refused to undergo an additional operation on the hand. The claimant sustained an accidental injury to his right hand and wrist on October 28, 1963, while repairing one of the employer’s machines. He was taken by ambulance to the Johns ²⁷⁹ Hopkins Hospital where the wound was cleaned and debrided and the tendons in his hand and wrist repaired.

The claimant’s hand was splinted for approximately five weeks. The Workmen’s Compensation Commission awarded the claimant temporary total disability payments from November 1, 1963, through November 24, 1963. He returned to work on November 25, 1963. In November, 1964, a wire or pin, used to repair the damage to the claimant’s hand, was removed.

There is no indication whether this procedure was contemplated when the original damage was repaired or was a distinct and separate corrective surgical procedure. After these operations and a substantial amount of post-operative physical therapy, the claimant was left with restricted motion in his right wrist and an inability to extend the fingers of his right hand. The claimant was discharged by the Johns Hopkins Hospital in April, 1965, eighteen months after the accident. On January 29, 1965, the claimant was examined, at the request of the employer and its insurer, by Dr. Frederick C. Hansen, Jr., a hand specialist.

Dr. Hansen recommended further surgery to repair the claimant’s hand and wrist. His report stated his belief that “this patient is an excellent candidate for a surgical procedure.” After this surgery, the claimant “would be unable to use his right hand in his work for five weeks and * * * would wear a splint which would partially limit the use of his right hand for another three weeks.” The report also noted: “The patient was advised of the possibility that a complete correction might not be effected. However, there is certainly reason to think that he stands a chance of an excellent improvement and that his disability could be reduced to somewhere in the neighborhood of 5%.” Dr. Eli Lippman, an orthopedic surgeon, also examined the claimant at the request of his attorney on July 19, 1965. Dr. Lippman’s report includes a discussion and diagnosis of the injury.

It concludes: “With reference to additional surgery, the success would be very questionable.” ²⁸⁰ The Workmen’s Compensation Commission has authority to withhold an award if the claimant’s refusal to undergo surgery is unreasonable. McCulloh & Co. v. Restivo, 152 Md. 60 , 136 Atl. 54 (1927); Schiller v. Baltimore & O. R. R. Co., 137 Md. 235 , 112 Atl. 272 (1920). The claimant’s intentional and unreasonable conduct breaks the chain of causation between his employment and the injury. To the extent that the claimant’s disability is found to relate to his arbitrary refusal, it does not “arise out of his employment,” Maryland Code, Article 101, sec. 15, and is non-compensable under the Workmen’s Compensation statute. 1 2 Larson, Workman's Compensation Law, sec. 13.22.

The claimant concedes that the test of reasonableness applies where an award of temporary total compensation is discontinued because of a refusal to undergo surgery, Schiller v. Baltimore & O. R. R. Co., supra, but argues that the test does not apply to a denial of permanent partial compensation. This distinction is nowhere made in the cases on the subject, and we see no logical basis for it. The rationale, a break in the chain of causation between employment and injury, applies equally