Pruitt v. Bugg Bros.
| Decision Date | 18 February 1977 |
| Citation | 547 S.W.2d 123 |
| Parties | Fred Thomas PRUITT, Appellant, v. BUGG BROTHERS et al., Appellees. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
Chas. A. Williams & Associates, Paducah, for appellant.
John T. Carneal, George R. Effinger, Boehl, Stopher, Graves & Deindoerfer, Paducah, for appellee Bugg Brothers.
Fred Thomas Pruitt appeals from an order of the Workmen's Compensation Board. The Board found claimant to be permanently partially disabled to the extent of 60% as a result of injuries he received on June 5, 1972. It was stipulated by the parties that the only issue is the extent and duration of the disability, if any.
Appellant is 63 years of age (b. 4/24/11), married, has a third-grade education, does not read well enough to read the newspapers and, during his work life, has done only manual, unskilled labor.
Appellant was mashed between two trucks, resulting in injuries to his arms, shoulders and chest. He was hospitalized on two occasions and caused to take extensive periods of home bed rest. He returned to work, but was physically unable to do even menial tasks by reason of pains in his arms, legs, shoulders, chest and head, and numbness in his fingers.
Five doctors testified. Four of them actually examined claimant; the other doctor did not talk with or examine claimant. He testified only from a personal reading of x-rays and a myelogram of claimant and from a telephone conversation with the doctor who made the myelogram. The medical testimony delineates the extent of claimant's disability as ranging from total disability to 5-15% disability to the body as a whole. Pruitt's neighbor portrays him as being unable to do any work, whereas, prior to the injuries the two of them traded farm work. A professor of rehabilitation at the Rehabilitation Institute of Southern Illinois University, who made a job-availability study of the Paducah, Kentucky, area, opined that there is very little opportunity in that area for the type of employment claimant is capable of doing.
The first question presented on this appeal is:
"Whether, as a matter of law, a sixty-three year old illiterate who has never done anything but hard labor is less than 100% disabled when all the medical evidence substantiates that he is no longer capable of heavy work?"
Counsel for appellant would have this court lay down an arbitrary rule that in all instances a 63-year-old illiterate person, who has never done anything but hard labor, is totally disabled when all of the medical evidence substantiates that he is no longer capable of doing heavy work. This, we cannot do. Each case must stand on its own bottom. Workmen's compensation benefits are paid on occupational disability, not functional disability, and it is the responsibility of the Board to translate the percentage of functional disability into the percentage of occupational disability. The extent of occupational disability is not necessarily the same as the extent of functional disability. If there is substantial evidence to support the Board's findings, this court is without authority to substitute its finding for that of the Board. Three Point Coal Co. v. Moser, 298 Ky. 868, 184 S.W.2d 242 (1944).
Dr. John D. Noonan, a neurosurgeon, testified that he examined claimant in February 1973, and at that time he found claimant unable to work, and the doctor was of the opinion that the disability would continue. He hospitalized claimant for a myelogram, which he read as normal, in that it did not show any evidence of spinal-cord compression. The doctor was not, however, able to state the cause of claimant's disability. Dr. Noonan was reputed to have later changed his evaluation of the myelogram.
Dr. Donald C. Haugh, a surgeon, examined Pruitt at the time of his admission to the hospital, and he continued treating him until June 16, 1973. As a result of his examination and of being informed by Dr. Noonan that the myelogram was normal, Dr. Haugh gave as his opinion that Pruitt's complaints result from...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mills v. Fresenius Medical Care Holding, No. 2006-CA-001975-WC (Ky. App. 8/3/2007)
...334 (Ky. App. 1995). When there is conflicting evidence, he is to choose which witnesses and evidence to believe. Pruitt v. Bugg Brothers, 547 S.W.2d 123 (Ky. 1977). In reviewing the ALJ's decision, the Board must decide whether the evidence compelled a result contrary to that reached by th......
-
Jeffries v. Clark & Ward, No. 2006-CA-002554-WC (Ky. App. 8/17/2007)
...334 (Ky. App. 1995). When there is conflicting evidence, he is to choose which witnesses and evidence to believe. Pruitt v. Bugg Brothers, 547 S.W.2d 123 (Ky. 1977). In reviewing the ALJ's decision, the Board must decide whether the evidence compelled a result contrary to that reached by th......
-
McCoy Elkhorn Coal Corp. v. Taylor, 2018-SC-000445-WC
...5 S.W.3d 119, 122-23 (Ky. 1999)). 15. Id. 16. Square D Co. v. Tipton, 862 S.W.2d 308, 309 (Ky. 1993) (citing Pruitt v. Bugg Brothers, 547 S.W.2d 123 (Ky. 1977)). 17. Cepero, 132 S.W.3d at 841. 18. Id. at 840-41. 19. Id. 20. Id. at 841. 21. Id. at 842-43. 22. Id. at 842. 23. Id. at 842-43. 2......
-
Richmond v. Group
...695 S.W.2d 418, 419 (Ky. 1985). When conflicting evidence is presented, the ALJ may choose whom and what to believe. Pruitt v. Bugg Brothers, 547 S.W.2d 123, 124 (Ky. 1977). The Board is charged with deciding whether the ALJ's finding "is so unreasonable under the evidence that it must be v......