Williams v. Industrial Commission of Ariz.

• Decision Date: 14 November 1951
• Docket Number: No. 5539,5539
• Citation: 237 P.2d 471,73 Ariz. 57
• Parties: WILLIAMS v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF ARIZONA et al.
• Court: Arizona Supreme Court

Page 471

237 P.2d 471

73 Ariz. 57

WILLIAMS v.INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF ARIZONA et al.

No. 5539.

Supreme Court of Arizona.

Nov. 14, 1951.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 18, 1951.

Udall & Peterson, of Safford, for petitioner.

H. S. McCluskey, of Phoenix, (Robert E. Yount and Robert W. Pickrell, Phoenix, of counsel), for respondentIndustrial Commission of Arizona.

LA PRADE, Justice.

Certiorari to review an award of the Industrial Commission.In June, 1949, petitioner sustained personal injuries by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment.On November 6, 1950, the commission entered its findings and award for permanent partial disability, which findings and award were affirmed on rehearing.

With reference to the injuries or a residue thereof, the evidence appears to be in conflict.The medical evidence is to the effect that petitioner has suffered a 45% disability of loss of use of the right foot and a 50% plus disability of loss or use of the left arm which were translated into a 35% general functional disability.

Evidence at the time the record was made disclosed that at the time of the injury petitioner was employed as a lineman by the respondent public utility and earning $250 per month; that on June 1, 1950he returned to his old job at the reduced monthly wage of $200 per month due to the fact that when he returned to employment he was not able to render full service; that at the date of the award, to wit, November 6, 1950, he was still earning $200 per month; that on December 1, 1950, some 24 days after the award, his wage was raised to $247.50 per month and on or about March 15, 1951he was receiving the full wage then being paid for the position, namely $285 per month, and continued to and was receiving the increased and full wage at the time the rehearing was determined on May 23, 1951.

The award was predicated upon the provisions of section 56-957, A.C.A.1939, subsections (c) and (d), and the injuries were treated as unscheduled.It was specifically found: 'That the physical injury caused by said accident consisted of multiple injuries' and 'that said applicant has suffered a 20% loss of earning power, and is entitled to 55% of the difference between $250.00 and $200.00 which is the sum of $27.50, payable monthly until further order of the Commission.'No complaint is made concerning the accident benefits that were afforded nor the compensation that was paid for temporary disability.It is apparent that the award made was for permanent partial disability resulting from unscheduled injuries not within the provisions of subsection (b) of section 56-957.

Petitioner's assignments of error and propositions of law in support thereof all go to the proposition that petitioner was entitled to be compensated under the provisions of section56-957(b), 13, 15 and 21, relating to scheduled losses and, in addition thereto, was entitled to a loss of earnings award based on subsections (c), (d) and (e) of section 56-957.Compensable scheduled injuries are compensated for regardless of the fact that there may be no disability to earn wages as a result thereof.Sections 56-956,56-957(b);Ossic v. Verde Central Mines, 46 Ariz. 176, 49 P.2d 396;Six Companies, Inc., v. Industrial Commission, 41 Ariz. 366, 18 P.2d 913; Ujevich v. Inspiration Consol. Copper Co., no disability to earn wages as a result thereof. injuries of the unscheduled variety are compensable under the provisions of subsections (c) and (d) of section 56-957, and no compensation is allowable unless there has been a loss of earning power and this regardless of the fact that there may be some residual physical functional disability.Hoffman v. Brophy, 61 Ariz. 307, 149 P.2d 160.

The contention of petitioner is not a matter of first impression in this jurisdiction.In the case of Ujevich v. Inspiration Consolidated Copper Co., supra, the identical contention was there made that is presented here.In that case, petitioner had suffered multiple injuries not falling within any of the enumerated multiple injuries provided for in subsection (c) of section 56-956 and specifically labeled as disabilities to be deemed total and permanent.As pointed out in the Ossiccase, supra, the specified multiple injuries to be deemed total and permanent under the provisions of subsection (c) of section 56-956 are not exclusive.This subsection specifically states: 'Such enumeration is not exclusive, and in all other cases permanent total disability shall be determined in accordance with the facts.'It appeared in the Ujevichcase, supra, that petitioner, in addition to an injury to his leg, suffered an injury or fracture of the left hip bone.Since an injury to the hip is not classified as specifically compensated for under subsection (b) of section 56-957, it was held that if the hip injury contributed in any way to the disability of the petitioner to work he was to be compensated therefor under subsections (c) and (d) of section 56-957.With reference to his contention that he was entitled to be compensated for his leg injury as a scheduled injury and, in addition thereto, for partial disability to work (loss of earning power) under the provisions of subsections (c) and (d) of section 56-957, this court said: '* * * We have not heretofore thought petitioner's claim correct, and after reading his analysis of the different parts of the statute, and giving his contention the serious consideration it deserves, he has not convinced us that he is right.He cites no authority.'Ujevich v. Inspiration Consol. Copper Co., supra.[42 Ariz. 276, 25 P.2d 274.]We wholeheartedly approve of this observation and think that it is entirely applicable to the contentions being made by the present petitioner.We are wholly unable to discern, as counsel for petitioner does, that the ultimate holding of this court in the Ujevich and Ossic cases sustain his position.It is our interpretation that the ultimate holding of those cases is to the effect that where an employee suffers injuries resulting in the permanent partial loss of the use of a leg and of an arm, compensation therefor must be determined...