Maness v. Industrial Commission

• Decision Date: 13 December 1967
• Docket Number: No. 9007--PR,9007--PR
• Citation: 102 Ariz. 557,434 P.2d 643
• Parties: J. L. MANESS, Petitioner, v. The INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION of Arizona and Bever Construction Company, Respondents.
• Court: Arizona Supreme Court

Page 643

434 P.2d 643

102 Ariz. 557

J. L. MANESS, Petitioner, v. The INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION of Arizona and Bever Construction Company, Respondents.

No. 9007--PR.

Supreme Court of Arizona, In Banc.

Dec. 13, 1967.

Gibbons, Kinney, Tipton & Warner, by Jack C. Warner, Phoenix, for petitioner.

Robert K. Park, Chief Counsel, by Dee-Dee Dee Samet, Phoenix, for respondent The Industrial Commission.

LOCKWOOD, Justice:

J. L. Maness, while employed as a journeyman carpenter, suffered an industrial accident when he fell backward over a roof onto a concrete curbing. He sustained injuries to his skull, spine, left wrist, left ring finger, ribs, and his right foot. Maness was awarded an unscheduled permanent disability as a result of the industrial injury, and returned to work. Approximately two years later, Maness asked the Industrial Commission to declare a loss of earning capacity and that a subsequent ulcer was related to the industrial accident. The Commission found as a result of the accident, that Maness suffered a partial loss of function of the left arm, and damage to both ears which resulted in a partial hearing loss and loss of equilibrium, and that these combined disabilities constituted a general physical function disability. However, the Commission also found that the applicant had returned to work of a similar nature to that which he was performing at the time of his injury, and that his average monthly wage at the time of the hearing was equal to or exceeded his average monthly wage at the time of the injury, and concluded from the evidence that Maness had in fact suffered no loss of earning capacity. Further, the Commission found that the evidence did not justify a finding that Maness' ulcer is causally related to the accident.

The Court of Appeals agreed with the Commission as to the ulcer, but disagreed with the Commission as to the alleged lost earning capacity. The Court felt that the evidence did not reasonably support the finding made by the Commission in that Maness was precluded from doing heavy work, had to work on the ground level due to his loss of equilibrium, had difficulty in hearing the telephone which was a handicap to him on the job because he was a foreman and had the duty to answer the telephone, had difficulty in handling some of the material due to the disability in his arm, and had difficulty in managing the 'simple acts of driving nails as easily as before because he had difficulty in holding them with his disabled left arm'. Further, Maness required a helper whenever he hung a door, and Maness suffered a general overall fatigue due to compensation that his body had to peform to make up for the functional disability, which precluded Maness from working overtime.

Maness presented no medical evidence in support of his theory regarding the ulcer. As the ulcerative condition is not a physical condition which would be clearly apparent to a layman as being related to the industrial accident, Maness' claim must fall as it was not supported by expert medical testimony. Lowry v. Industrial Commission, 92 Ariz. 222, 224, 375 P.2d 572, 573 (1962).

As to the issue of whether Maness had suffered a loss of earning capacity as a result of the industrial accident, we must affirm the finding of the Industrial Commission and vacate the decision of the Court of Appeals. In ...