Virginia Oak Flooring Co. v. Chrisley
Decision Date | 15 March 1954 |
Docket Number | No. 4203,4203 |
Citation | 80 S.E.2d 537,195 Va. 850 |
Parties | VIRGINIA OAK FLOORING CO., INC., ET AL. v. FLOYD L. CHRISLEY. Record |
Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
Gentry & Locke and R. E. Mason, for the appellants.
Alex M. Harman, Jr., A. Dow Owens and Gilmer, Harman & Sadler, for the appellee.
On January 13, 1948, Floyd L. Chrisley, hereinafter designated claimant, suffered compensable injuries within the purview of the Workmen's Compensation Act. His most severe injuries were comminuted fractures of the upper third of the femur in each leg. From date of injury to July 24, 1952, a period of fifty-four months, claimant was awarded compensation under section 65-51 for temporary total incapacity, except from March 24, 1950 to June 4, 1950, and from November 6, 1950 to June 15, 1951, when he was paid for ten per cent loss of use of one leg and twenty-five per cent loss of use of the other under section 65-53. On July 16, 1951, claimant was again found to be temporarily totally disabled and was awarded compensation for such disability to begin on June 15, 1951.
On July 24, 1952, the insurance carrier filed a petition seeking a modification of the award. On September 24, 1952, the hearing commissioner in his findings of fact stated that the claimant had sustained twenty-five per cent permanent disability to his left leg and thirty per cent permanent disability to his right leg and suspended the payments for temporary total incapacity and awarded him, under section 65-53 (15), twenty dollars per week for ninety-six and one-quarter weeks, subject to credit for payments theretofore made under the award for ten per cent loss of use of one leg and twenty-five per cent loss of use of the other, but allowed no credit on compensation paid for temporary total incapacity. On review by the full Commission the award of the hearing commissioner was reversed, he dissenting, and claimant was awarded the maximum compensation provided under section 65-51 for total permanent incapacity. From that award this appeal was allowed.
The case was submitted to the Commission on a petition alleging that there had been a change in claimant's condition and praying that the award based on temporary total incapacity be changed to an award based on permanent partial loss of use of the legs. The burden was on the carrier to prove its allegation by a preponderance of the evidence. No verbal testimony was introduced. The evidence was confined to the written statements of six medical experts, none of whom attended the hearing and, hence, none of whom was cross examined. The majority, as well as the dissenting commissioner, based their different findings of fact upon the doctors' statements.
The carrier contends that the evidence proves that claimant has sustained only a permanent partial loss of use of both legs which limits his compensation to that stated in section 65-53 (15). Claimant, on the other hand, contends that the same statements of the doctors clearly prove that he has sustained a total and permanent loss of use of both legs which entitles him to receive the maximum compensation provided in section 65-51.
Commissioner Nuckols in the majority opinion states the history of the case and recites the evidence upon which the Commission's findings of fact are based, the pertinent part of which is as follows:
'Whereupon the carrier filed application for hearing upon the ground of change in condition to determine the extent of the permanent partial loss of use of the legs.
opinion contained this language:
''. . . it is clearly understood the present award has no bearing upon a future one to be entered which may cover any general partial disability the claimant may have suffered from the original accident.'
'The efficacy of the award was short lived for on June 4, 1950, claimant was again admitted to the hospital for an operation for varicose veins made necessary by the long period of inactivity. Payments on account of the scheduled injury were suspended and payments on account of temporary total disability were resumed on that date. After a healing period payments under the award of May 5, 1950, were resumed on November 6, 1950, by memorandum of agreement.
'Upon a report of Dr. D. S. Divers who performed the surgery and rendered treatment for the circulatory disorders, dated June 15, 1951, stating that his patient was again temporarily totally disabled, payments on that account were resumed on that date and payments under the award of May 5, 1950, again suspended. A memorandum of agreement to this effect was duly entered into and filed. There followed several examinations by specialists in circulatory disorders to determine the best method of treating claimant, the sum total of which was a decision among the physicians that further surgery would probably not benefit their patient. Summing up his opinion Dr. Divers reported on June 30, 1952, as follows:
'Thereupon the carrier asked for a hearing to determine the percentage loss of use of the legs. Payments for temporary total disability were suspended as of July 24, 1952. Under date of September 5, 1952, Dr. Divers supplemented his report of June 30, 1952, as follows:
'On July 24, 1952, Dr. George S. Bourne, who had examined claimant several times at the carrier's request, reported:
''I believe that he may be able to do some very light carpenter work, possibly around his own workshop at home, but this will probably be the extent of his activity.'
'Dr. Fredric Delp in a medical report dated September 6, 1952, reported as follows:
''Everybody concerned is familiar with Mr. F. L. Chrisley's history and the severe fractures he sustained. Since I have seen him he has had strippings and ligations of varicose veins in both legs. At the present time he has marked limitation of hip motion on the right and limitation of flexion of rt. knee. The same is true of the left hip and knee but to a somewhat lesser degree. The rt. femur is still plated. There is marked impairment of circulation in both lower extremities with ulceration of the left leg. There have been ulcers on the rt. leg.
'Dr. L. Perry Hyde in a medical report dated September 8, 1952, has the following to say:
The dissenting commissioner based his findings of fact upon that part of the statement of Dr. Divers of June 30, 1952, in which he said: '. . . I feel that he has a 25% permanent disability to his left leg . . .' and 'a 30% permanent disability to his right leg . . .', in which conclusion Dr. Hoover concurred in the following language: '. . . I believe Dr. Divers' estimate should be relied upon, since he has undoubtedly taken both conditions into consideration. ' The dissenting commissioner disregarded all other testimony tending to show that claimant was totally disabled on the theory that such evidence was not pertinent under section 65-53 in determining the extent of claimant's loss of use of legs.
An employee who is injured in an...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Bateman
...or loss of earnings, but is indemnity for permanent loss of use, total or partial, of the injured member. Virginia Oak Flooring Co. v. Chrisley, 195 Va. 850, 856-57, 80 [4 Va.App. 462] S.E.2d 537, 541 (1954); J.A. Foust Coal Co. v. Messer, 195 Va. 762, 766, 80 S.E.2d 533, 535 (1954). After ......
-
Great Northern Nekoosa Corp. v. Wood
...to determine the propriety of an award under former Code § 65.1-56(18) of the Workers' Compensation Act); Virginia Oak Flooring Co. v. Chrisley, 195 Va. 850, 80 S.E.2d 537 (1954) (adopting the same definition of "total and permanent loss" in the context of former Code § 65-53(18) of the Vir......
-
All States Steel Erectors Corp. v. Steele, Record No. 0761-04-3 (VA 12/28/2004)
...or incapacity of claimant to engage in gainful employment is a proper element for consideration." Virginia Oak Flooring Co. v. Chrisley, 195 Va. 850, 859-60, 80 S.E.2d 537, 542 (1954). See also Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. Dancy, 255 Va. 248, 251-52, 497 S.E.2d 133, 134-35 (1998); Sky Chefs, In......
-
Branch v. Com.
...hands, both arms, both feet, or both legs. Code § 65.2-503(C, D) (formerly Code § 65.1-56(18)); see Virginia Oak Flooring Co. v. Chrisley, 195 Va. 850, 856-57, 80 S.E.2d 537, 541 (1954). Also, the meaning judicially afforded "total and permanent disability" as used in insurance policies doe......
-
4.3 Coverage for Incapacity
...S.E.2d 574, 577 (1996).[55] J.A. Foust Coal Co. v. Messer, 195 Va. 762, 80 S.E.2d 533 (1954).[56] Virginia Oak Flooring Co. v. Chrisley, 195 Va. 850, 80 S.E.2d 537 (1954); Hoffman v. Carter, 50 Va.App. 199, 648 S.E.2d 318 (2007) (claimant must prove entitlement to continuing payments with c......