White v. Woolery Stone Co., Inc.

Decision Date01 August 1979
Docket NumberNo. 2-1278-A-436,2-1278-A-436
Citation181 Ind.App. 532,396 N.E.2d 137
PartiesGeorge WHITE, Appellant, v. WOOLERY STONE COMPANY, INC., Appellee.
CourtIndiana Appellate Court

K. Edwin Applegate, Applegate & Pratt, Bloomington, for appellant.

Richard W. Guthrie, Stewart, Irwin, Gilliom, Fuller & Meyer, Indianapolis, for appellee.

LYBROOK, Judge.

MEMORANDUM DECISION

George White injured his knee while working for the Woolery Stone Company. Due to the injury, White underwent surgery to remove the cartilage from his left knee. This operation resulted in many complications and a lengthy convalescent period; in fact, White never fully recovered from the operation or the complications that arose therefrom.

White brought a claim before a single member of the Industrial Board of Indiana. The single member found White to suffer a 50% Permanent partial impairment to his left lower extremity, and ordered Woolery Stone Co. to pay White $60 per week for 1121/2 weeks. White appealed this decision to the Full Industrial Board, alleging that the single member award was contrary to law and was not sustained by sufficient evidence. White sought a declaration that his impairment resulted in permanent total disability. The Full Industrial Board disagreed, however, and affirmed the single member award.

As a result of the decision of the Full Industrial Board, White filed a timely praecipe and properly included his assignment of errors in the record of proceedings presented to this court. This appeal results.

In his assignment of errors, White argues that the decision of the Full Industrial Board is contrary to law and unsupported by the evidence.

We affirm the decision of the Full Industrial Board.

Disability and impairment are words of art, as used in the Workmen's Compensation Act. Ind. Code 22-3-3. "Disability" means and refers to an inability to work, whereas "impairment" means and refers to a loss of physical function. See Perez v. United States Steel Corp., (1977) Ind.App., 359 N.E.2d 925, 927; Kenwood Erec. Co. v. Cowsert, (1953), 124 Ind.App. 165, 115 N.E.2d 507. A further distinction is necessary to properly consider White's claim. This distinction concerns the understanding of three terms necessary to the disposition of the case at bar: temporary total disability, permanent total disability, and permanent partial impairment.

Temporary total disability payments are intended to compensate an employee for the treatment period following a work-related injury, and during this treatment period it is relevant whether the injured workman has the ability to return to work of the same kind or character. Covarubias v. Decatur Casting; Division of Hamilton Allied Corp., (1976) Ind.App., 358 N.E.2d 174. If he does not have the ability to return to work of the same kind or character during the treatment period, he is temporarily totally disabled. Covarubias, supra. This is to be compared with permanent total disability and permanent partial impairment which are determined, alternatively, when the work-related injury reaches a permanent and quiescent state, the treatment period ends, and the permanent injury can be assessed for compensation purposes. Covarubias, supra; Perez, supra.

Dean Small, in Small, Workmen's Compensation Law of Indiana, § 9.4, p. 244 states:

"A total disability to be permanent must be one which so destroys or shatters a workman's wage earning capacities as to leave him unable to resume reasonable types of employment for the remainder of his life. Since this form of disability is treated in the same section with other harms comprising threats to wage-earning power such as impairments and lost uses, total permanent disability must be taken to require a greater incapacity than that...

To continue reading

Request your trial
22 cases
  • Talas v. Correct Piping Co., Inc.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • May 18, 1982
    ...leads inalterably to a conclusion contrary to that reached by the Board will its decision be disturbed. White v. Woolery Stone Co., Inc., (1979) Ind.App., 396 N.E.2d 137; Penn-Dixie Steel Corp. v. Savage, (1979) Ind.App., 390 N.E.2d Defined in Ind.Code § 22-3-3-4, supra, are four time frame......
  • Noblesville Casting Div. of TRW, Inc. v. Prince
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • August 11, 1982
    ...reached by the Board will its decision be disturbed. Talas v. Correct Piping Co., (1982) Ind., 435 N.E.2d 22; White v. Woolery Stone Co., Inc., (1979) Ind.App., 396 N.E.2d 137. The record reveals that in addition to Dr. Norman's testimony, Prince immediately suffered pain in his back, groin......
  • Duncan v. George Moser Leather Co., 2-479A112
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • August 28, 1980
    ...of benefits if the evidence justifies the change following the filing of a form 14 application. 5 In White v. Woolery Stone Company (1979), Ind.App., 396 N.E.2d 137, 139, this court discussed "permanent total disability" with a finer Temporary total disability payments are intended to compe......
  • Vantine v. Elkhart Brass Mfg. Co., Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Indiana
    • September 30, 1983
    ...or a state of "stability", the claimant is no longer entitled to temporary total disability benefits. See also, White v. Woolery Stone Co., Inc., Ind.App. 396 N.E.2d 137 (1979), and Goodman v. Olin Matheison Chemical Corp., 174 Ind.App. 396, 367 N.E.2d 1140 Mr. Vantine had been seen by both......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT