Ada Iron & Metal Works v. Tarpley

• Decision Date: 20 October 1964
• Docket Number: No. 40911,40911
• Citation: 396 P.2d 508,1964 OK 227
• Parties: ADA IRON & METAL WORKS and Mid-Continent Casualty Company, Petitioners, v. Ed TARPLEY and the State Industrial Court, Respondents.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

Page 508

396 P.2d 508

1964 OK 227

ADA IRON & METAL WORKS and Mid-Continent Casualty Company, Petitioners, v.Ed TARPLEY and the State Industrial Court, Respondents.

No. 40911.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

Oct. 20, 1964.

Syllabus by the Court

The impairment of a specific or 'scheduled' member of the body may not be considered in combination with the disability to an unclassified portion of the body in order to allow compensation for the aggregate condition on the basis of a percentage of disability to the body as a whole, but such classified and unclassified disabilities must be determined separately in accordance with the applicable statutory schedules.

Original proceeding by Ada Iron & Metal Works and its insurance carrier, Mid-Continent Casualty Company, to review an award to Ed Tarpley, claimant, by the State Industrial Court.Award vacated and cause remanded with directions.

Looney, Watts, Looney, Nichols & Johnson, Oklahoma City, for petitioners.

Marx Childers, Oklahoma City, Buck Cartwright, Wewoka, Charles R. Nesbitt, Atty. Gen., for respondents.

BERRY, Justice.

The question involved in this review is substantially:

Can an injury to the back be combined with an injury to the leg for the purpose of awarding compensation on the basis of permanent partial disability to the body as a whole?

In 1954, Ed Tarpley, claimant, suffered a gunshot wound to the left leg and in 1955 the leg was operated for a blood clot.On May 2, 1963, while in the employment of respondent, Ada Iron & Metal Works, claimant sustained an injury to his back.Since that time his left leg swells and causes considerable pain.

Dr. M, on behalf of claimant, stated that as a result of the accident on May 2, 1963, claimant had sustained a 45 per cent permanent partial disability to the body as a whole because of the back injury and a 40 per cent permanent partial disability to the left leg because of aggravation of the preexisting condition of said leg and 'as a result of the combination of the injuries to his back and left leg, I feel he now has a 65% permanent partial disability to the body as a whole for the performance of ordinary manual labor.'

Dr. W. M., on behalf of claimant, stated it was his opinion that as a result of the accident claimant was permanently and totally disabled.Dr. W., for respondent, assessed claimant's permanent partial disability as 25 per cent to the body as a whole.

A trial judge of the State Industrial Court entered an order finding in part as follows:

'That by reason of the injury of May 2, 1963, claimant has sustained 45% P.P.D. to his back and 40% to his left leg by reason of aggravation and that by reason of combination of back injury and aggravation of a pre-existing condition to left leg claimant has sustained 65% P.P.D. to his body, * * *.'

The order was affirmed by the Court en banc on appeal.

Respondent and its insurance carrier, Mid-Continent Casualty Company, seek a review of the award to claimant.Reliance for a reversal of the above finding is based primarily upon the contention the Industrial Court used an 'incorrect method in computing the disability, by combining a leg and back injury to the body as a whole when the combination did not...