General Electric Company v. Mary Ann Baggett, as surviving dependent spouse of Charles Baggett

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 10/09/09 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , A l a b a m a A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may be made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2009-2010 2080324 General E l e c t r i c Company v. Mary Ann Baggett, as s u r v i v i n g dependent spouse o f C h a r l e s Baggett Appeal from Morgan C i r c u i t Court (CV-03-764) BRYAN, J u d g e . G e n e r a l E l e c t r i c Company a p p e a l s f r o m a j u d g m e n t a w a r d i n g workers' compensation b e n e f i t s t o M a r y Ann B a g g e t t , s u r v i v i n g dependent spouse o f C h a r l e s B a g g e t t . We as t h e affirm. 2080324 In A u g u s t 2 0 0 3 , Mr. Baggett E l e c t r i c , seeking workers' to his left ankle and sued h i s employer, General compensation b e n e f i t s f o r i n j u r i e s left knee suffered in April 2001. F o l l o w i n g a t r i a l , t h e t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r e d an amended j u d g m e n t determining that Mr. Baggett was permanently and totally d i s a b l e d as a r e s u l t o f h i s w o r k - r e l a t e d l e f t - l e g i n j u r y . General See General App. 2 007) Electric E l e c . Co. appealed the pending, Mr. Baggett's his Mr. Baggett 1015 3d this court. (Ala. Civ. On A p r i l 24, 2007, w h i l e t h e died. the initial injury I t i s undisputed appeal, General other t h i n g s , t h a t the t r i a l Baggett's d i d not proximately that death. In work-related to 1 So. v. B a g g e t t , ("General E l e c t r i c " ) . a p p e a l was judgment Electric c o u r t had cause argued, among e r r e d by t r e a t i n g Mr. l e f t - l e g i n j u r y as an i n j u r y t o t h e b o d y as a w h o l e , r a t h e r t h a n as an i n j u r y t o a s c h e d u l e d 5 7 ( a ) ( 3 ) , A l a . Code 1975. concluding that the I d ^ a t 1017. trial court c o m p e n s a t i o n f o r Mr. B a g g e t t ' s had This court erred in 25-5- agreed, awarding i n j u r y o u t s i d e the compensation schedule e s t a b l i s h e d i n § 25-5-57(a)(3). 11, 2007, we member u n d e r § r e v e r s e d the t r i a l 2 A c c o r d i n g l y , on c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t and May remanded 2080324 the case. Id. at 1020. F o l l o w i n g the r e l e a s e of t h i s c o u r t ' s o p i n i o n i n General E l e c t r i c , M r s . B a g g e t t was Mr. Baggett. On remand s u b s t i t u t e d as a p a r t y i n p l a c e o f to the trial court, Mrs. Baggett benefits pursuant which permits a deceased a r g u e d t h a t she i s e n t i t l e d t o c o m p e n s a t i o n t o § 2 5 - 5 - 5 7 ( a ) ( 5 ) , A l a . Code 1975, employee's s u r v i v i n g spouse or dependent c h i l d r e n t o r e c o v e r benefits due the employee under c e r t a i n c o n d i t i o n s . General E l e c t r i c , however, argued t h a t Mrs. B a g g e t t i s not e n t i t l e d t o compensation b e n e f i t s under § 2 5 - 5 - 5 7 ( a ) ( 5 ) . On November 26, 2008, t h e t r i a l c o u r t , r e l y i n g on i t s f i n d i n g s o f f a c t made i n its previous judgment o f December 2005, d e t e r m i n i n g t h a t Mr. B a g g e t t had s u s t a i n e d the leg, a entered use of h i s l e f t 5 7 ( a ) ( 3 ) , A l a . Code 1975. benefits to b e t w e e n May Baggett's Mrs. 15, death. scheduled the t o t a l injury 2004, and The trial for that April court 24, injury 2007, judgment l o s s of under § Therefore, the t r i a l Baggett a court for the the date a l s o awarded Mrs. 25-5- awarded period of Mr. Baggett u n p a i d t e m p o r a r y - t o t a l - d i s a b i l i t y b e n e f i t s t h a t had a c c r u e d t o Mr. Baggett. General E l e c t r i c appealed. S e c t i o n 2 5 - 5 - 8 1 ( e ) , A l a . Code 1975, p r o v i d e s t h e s t a n d a r d 3 2080324 of review i n workers' compensation cases: "(1) I n r e v i e w i n g t h e s t a n d a r d o f p r o o f set f o r t h h e r e i n and o t h e r l e g a l i s s u e s , r e v i e w by t h e Court of Civil Appeals shall be without a presumption of c o r r e c t n e s s . "(2) I n r e v i e w i n g f i n d i n g of the c i r c u i t if that finding is evidence." Substantial evidence pure f i n d i n g s of f a c t , the c o u r t s h a l l n o t be reversed supported by substantial is "'evidence of such weight and q u a l i t y t h a t f a i r - m i n d e d persons i n the e x e r c i s e of i m p a r t i a l j u d g m e n t can r e a s o n a b l y t o be 262, Co. proved.'" 268 parte ( A l a . 1996) of F l o r i d a , On Ex appeal, 547 its So. "ascertained by 2d 870, General E l e c t r i c 25-5-57(a)(5), a r g u m e n t on Trinity Indus., 871 (Ala. 57(a)(5) provides, 680 So. 2d 1989)). argues t h a t the trial court Baggett compensation b e n e f i t s pursuant A l a . Code 1975. General E l e c t r i c i t s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the the Inc., ( q u o t i n g West v. F o u n d e r s L i f e A s s u r a n c e e r r e d i n a w a r d i n g Mrs. to § i n f e r the e x i s t e n c e of the f a c t sought court" in that in pertinent use section. of the bases phrase Section part: " I f an e m p l o y e e who s u s t a i n s a p e r m a n e n t p a r t i a l o r p e r m a n e n t t o t a l d i s a b i l i t y , t h e d e g r e e o f w h i c h has b e e n a g r e e d upon by the p a r t i e s or has been a s c e r t a i n e d by t h e c o u r t , and d e a t h r e s u l t s n o t proximately therefrom, the employee's s u r v i v i n g spouse or dependent c h i l d r e n or b o t h s h a l l be 4 25-5- 2080324 e n t i t l e d t o t h e b a l a n c e o f t h e payments w h i c h would have been due and p a y a b l e t o t h e w o r k e r , w h e t h e r o r not t h e d e c e d e n t e m p l o y e e was r e c e i v i n g c o m p e n s a t i o n for permanent total disability, not exceeding, however, t h e amount t h a t w o u l d have been due t h e s u r v i v i n g spouse or dependent c h i l d r e n o r b o t h i f d e a t h h a d r e s u l t e d p r o x i m a t e l y f r o m an i n j u r y on a c c o u n t o f w h i c h c o m p e n s a t i o n i s b e i n g p a i d t o an employee." (Emphasis never added.) I t i s undisputed that a g r e e d upon the degree o f Mr. the p a r t i e s Baggett's have disability. R e g a r d i n g w h e t h e r t h e d e g r e e o f d i s a b i l i t y was a s c e r t a i n e d b y the t r i a l c o u r t , G e n e r a l E l e c t r i c a r g u e s t h a t , when t h i s court r e v e r s e d t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s December 2005 judgment and remanded the case i n General E l e c t r i c , disability ceased t o have court at that point. been the degree o f Mr. "ascertained" by Baggett's the trial T h e r e f o r e , G e n e r a l E l e c t r i c a r g u e s , Mrs. B a g g e t t i s not e n t i t l e d t o compensation b e n e f i t s under § 25-557(a)(5). Under § 25-5-57(a)(5), " [ w ] h e n t h e amount o f d i s a b i l i t y b e n e f i t s due t h e w o r k e r has been e s t a b l i s h e d , i f t h e w o r k e r t h e n d i e s from a cause u n r e l a t e d t o the w o r k - r e l a t e d i n j u r y , his s p o u s e and d e p e n d e n t s are e n t i t l e d to the b e n e f i t s t h a t w o u l d have been due t o t h e w o r k e r . ' E s s e n t i a l l y , the spouse s t e p s i n t o the shoes o f the w o r k e r , t o c o n t i n u e r e c e i v i n g t h e b e n e f i t s owed.'" Drummond Co. v. L o l l e y , 786 So. 2d 509, 5 512 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2080324 2000) 969 ( q u o t i n g Chatham S t e e l ( A l a . C i v . App. C o r p . v. an related employee d i e s i n j u r y before employee's degree spouse So. 2d 251 Express, 1988), Inc. this 293, v. of disability, children the employee's will not be 271 So. 2d 251 Phillips, court 539 considered, So. in 2d been before entered the Express, determining completion the trial of court the the appeal entered a surviving to I n Vann (Ala. Civ. context degree the entitled 1972). 296 the work- Owens v. Ward, ( C i v . App. 5 7 ( a ) ( 5 ) , t h e e f f e c t o f an e m p l o y e e ' s d e a t h had 2d (Ala. 2002)). determining compensation b e n e f i t s under § 2 5 - 5 - 5 7 ( a ) ( 5 ) . 49 A l a . App. So. from causes u n r e l a t e d t o the a judgment i s e n t e r e d dependent or 768 1 9 9 9 ) , r e v e r s e d on o t h e r g r o u n d s , Ex p a r t e S t a t e Dep't o f I n d u s . R e l a t i o n s , 848 If Shadinger, of App. § 25-5- a f t e r a judgment of disability process. judgment but In Vann finding the e m p l o y e e t o be t o t a l l y and p e r m a n e n t l y d i s a b l e d as a r e s u l t o f an injury 296-97. c a u s e d by a work-related accident. F o l l o w i n g the e n t r y of d i e d f r o m c a n c e r , w h i c h was employer c o u r t had subsequently the 539 judgment, the So. 2d employee u n r e l a t e d t o the work i n j u r y . appealed, arguing (1) that the The trial e r r e d by n o t a d d r e s s i n g t h e e m p l o y e e ' s c a n c e r ; 6 at (2) 2080324 t h a t the c a n c e r was 58, Code Ala. compensation an "infirmity" 1975, and, consequently, should have been employee's degree of d i s a b i l i t y the court" s p o u s e and as r e f e r r e d t o i n § 25-5¬ and, consequently, reduced; had that argument c o n c e r n i n g I d . a t 297. § 25-5-57(a)(5), the and employee's (3) that not been " a s c e r t a i n e d the d e p e n d e n t c h i l d r e n were n o t under § 25-5-57(a) (5). that by employee's s u r v i v i n g entitled to Regarding the this court benefits employer's stated: "[The e m p l o y e r ] m a i n t a i n s t h a t [ t h e p h r a s e ] 'has b e e n a s c e r t a i n e d by t h e c o u r t ' means a f i n a l and nonappealable judgment or a judgment t h a t has s u r v i v e d t h e a p p e a l s p r o c e s s must e x i s t b e f o r e a surviving spouse and/or dependent c h i l d r e n may recover under s e c t i o n 25-5-57(a)(5). "We d i s a g r e e and c h o o s e t o r e s o l v e t h i s i s s u e first. I n t h e c a s e o f H a r r i s v. K i m e r l i n g T r u c k & P a r t s Co., 504 So. 2d 304 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 8 6 ) , we d i s c u s s e d s e c t i o n 2 5 - 5 - 5 7 ( a ) ( 5 ) and f o u n d t h a t i t 'provides f o r payment t o a s p o u s e o r d e p e n d e n t c h i l d r e n o n l y i n the event the degree of d i s a b i l i t y has b e e n a g r e e d upon o r j u d i c i a l l y ascertained.' However, we have n e v e r had o c c a s i o n t o d e f i n e t h e phrase ' j u d i c i a l l y ascertained.' "In i n t e r p r e t i n g a p o r t i o n of the c o m p e n s a t i o n s t a t u t e s , we r e c o g n i z e : work[ers'] "'The W o r k [ e r s ' ] C o m p e n s a t i o n A c t s h o u l d be given a l i b e r a l c o n s t r u c t i o n to accomplish i t s b e n e f i c e n t p u r p o s e s , and a l l r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t s must be r e s o l v e d i n f a v o r o f t h e employee.' 7 the 2080324 " A m e r i c a n T e n n i s C o u r t s , I n c . v . H i n t o n , 378 So. 2d 235 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1979) ( c i t a t i o n o m i t t e d ) . "Recognizing the aforementioned 'beneficent p u r p o s e s ' o f w o r k [ e r s ' ] c o m p e n s a t i o n l a w s , we f i n d the phrase ' j u d i c i a l l y a s c e r t a i n e d ' t o r e q u i r e t h a t a court o f competent j u r i s d i c t i o n consider the m a t t e r and then e n t e r a f i n a l o r d e r s e t t i n g f o r t h the e x t e n t o f t h e i n j u r e d employee's d i s a b i l i t y . "We f i n d t h a t t h i s p a r t i c u l a r s t a t u t o r y l a n g u a g e reflects legislative intent to insure that d i s a b i l i t y determinations n o t be made f o l l o w i n g an employee's death. We cannot agree w i t h [the employer]'s p o s i t i o n that section 25-5-57(a)(5) r e q u i r e s t h a t a j u d g m e n t be e n t e r e d a n d t h a t s a i d j u d g m e n t be t a k e n t h r o u g h t h e a p p e a l s p r o c e s s b e f o r e the disability c a n be considered 'judicially ascertained.' "[The e m p l o y e r ] ' s p o s i t i o n w o u l d c o m p r o m i s e t h e 'beneficent purposes' o f the Work[ers'] Compensation Act. On t h e o t h e r h a n d , o u r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n w o u l d be more i n k e e p i n g w i t h t h i s b a s i c s t a t u t o r y g o a l . "It i s a s e t t l e d rule of statutory construction t h a t when a t t a c h i n g one m e a n i n g t o a t e r m as o p p o s e d t o a n o t h e r we may p r o p e r l y e x a m i n e t h e o p p o s i n g outcomes f o r guidance i n s e l e c t i n g the r i g h t interpretation. State v. Calumet & Hecla C o n s o l i d a t e d C o p p e r Co., 259 A l a . 225, 66 So. 2d 726 (1953) . " H a v i n g e n g a g e d i n t h i s t y p e o f a n a l y s i s , we f i n d t h a t our i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f the term ' j u d i c i a l l y a s c e r t a i n e d ' produces t h e w o r k a b l e and f a i r r e s u l t . A c c o r d i n g l y , we f i n d t h a t [ t h e e m p l o y e e ' s ] s p o u s e and/or dependent c h i l d r e n a r e e n t i t l e d to h i s disability benefits subject to the other r e s t r i c t i o n s of section 25-5-57(a)(5)." Vann E x p r e s s , 539 So. 2d a t 297-98. 8 2080324 The court c o u r t i n Vann E x p r e s s t h e n d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e had cancer not erred in i n i t s judgment compensation employee's entitled due the and by spouse compensation employee i n the t r i a l to not to h i s cancer. surviving to failing address the employee's reducing the employee's I d . a t 298. and that had Therefore, the dependent court's trial been children awarded were to the judgment. Vann E x p r e s s i n d i c a t e s t h a t , i f a t r i a l c o u r t has e n t e r e d a judgment employee's d e t e r m i n i n g the degree d e a t h , the employee's of disability before an subsequent d e a t h from causes u n r e l a t e d t o t h e d i s a b i l i t y does n o t p r e c l u d e t h e employee's surviving recovering benefits appeal. of spouse that or dependent would When Mr. have been children due the B a g g e t t d i e d on A p r i l his disability had been from employee after 24, 2007, t h e d e t e r m i n e d by the trial an degree court, w h i c h h a d f o u n d h i m t o be p e r m a n e n t l y and t o t a l l y d i s a b l e d i n its December 2005 judgment. Accordingly, under § 25-5- 5 7 ( a ) ( 5 ) , M r s . B a g g e t t " s t e p p e d i n t o t h e s h o e s " o f Mr. B a g g e t t at that point compensation Mr. and became Baggett a p p e a l . See L o l l e y , 786 entitled would have So. 2d a t 512; 9 to receive received, whatever pending and Vann E x p r e s s , the 539 2080324 So. 2d a t 297-98. On a p p e a l , this court reversed the t r i a l c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t , c o n c l u d i n g t h a t Mr. B a g g e t t ' s have been that t r e a t e d as a s c h e d u l e d the t r i a l disability Mr. had l o s t Baggett court the use o f h i s l e f t leg, a accordingly. 5-57(a)(5) this that scheduled the t r i a l court merely t h e b e n e f i t s t h a t Mr. B a g g e t t "would § 2 5 - 5 - 5 7 ( a ) ( 5 ) , h a d he s u r v i v e d . does n o t p r e c l u d e Mrs. Baggett from S e c t i o n 25recovery i n case. The be found and i t awarded b e n e f i t s t o Mrs. I n so d o i n g , awarded t o Mrs. B a g g e t t have b e e n due," permanent-total- On remand, t h e t r i a l i n j u r y under § 2 5 - 5 - 5 7 ( a ) ( 3 ) , should and, consequently, court had e r r e d i n awarding benefits. Baggett injury injury requirement t h a t an e m p l o y e e ' s d e g r e e o f d i s a b i l i t y " a s c e r t a i n e d by t h e c o u r t " i n order f o r t h e employee's s u r v i v i n g spouse and dependent c h i l d r e n t o r e c o v e r b e n e f i t s i s surely intended employee's Cole t o minimize death, v. S t a t e the extent of proving, of d i s a b i l i t y . Workmen's Comp. Comm'r, S.E.2d 586 (1980) 166 W. after an See g e n e r a l l y V a . 294, 273 (canvassing the law r e g a r d i n g r i g h t s t o d e r i v a t i v e workers' involving problems dependents' compensation b e n e f i t s i n cases an e m p l o y e e ' s d e a t h ) . 10 In this case, we e m p h a s i z e 2080324 that an Baggett's extensive injury d i s c u s s e d below, record was made concerning before the extent h i s death. o f Mr. As w i l l t h e r e c o r d made b e f o r e Mr. B a g g e t t ' s be death supports the t r i a l court's f i n d i n g regarding the extent of h i s left-leg injury. T h i s c a s e does n o t p r e s e n t t h e p r o b l e m o f p r o o f t h a t § 2 5 - 5 - 5 7 ( a ) ( 5 ) was d e s i g n e d t o p r e v e n t . 1 G e n e r a l E l e c t r i c a l s o a r g u e s t h a t , upon remand, t h e t r i a l court erred i n finding that t o t a l l o s s o f use o f h i s l e f t Mr. B a g g e t t l e g , a s c h e d u l e d member u n d e r § 2 5 - 5 - 5 7 ( a ) ( 3 ) a . 1 6 . , A l a . Code 1975. p r e s c r i b e s t h a t compensation had s u s t a i n e d the Section 25-5-57(a)(3)a. t o an i n j u r e d e m p l o y e e s h a l l be e q u a l t o 66 2/3% o f t h a t e m p l o y e e ' s average weekly e a r n i n g s for which a particular number o f weeks, corresponds to a G e n e r a l E l e c t r i c does n o t a r g u e t h a t M r s . B a g g e t t i s p r e c l u d e d from r e c o v e r y under § 25-5-57(a)(5) by v i r t u e o f t h i s c o u r t ' s c o n s t r u c t i o n , i n Drummond Co. v. Boatman, 825 So. 2d 823 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 1 ) , o f t h a t s e c t i o n as i t r e l a t e s t o § 25-5-60, A l a . Code 1975. See a l s o Ex p a r t e S t a t e Dep't o f I n d u s . R e l a t i o n s , 848 So. 2d 251 ( A l a . 2 0 0 2 ) , c i t i n g Boatman w i t h a p p r o v a l . T h e r e f o r e , we do n o t a d d r e s s t h a t i s s u e . See A v i s R e n t A C a r S y s . , I n c . v. H e i l m a n , 876 So. 2d 1111, 1124 n.8 ( A l a . 2003) ("An a r g u m e n t n o t made on a p p e a l i s a b a n d o n e d or w a i v e d . " ) . M o r e o v e r , G e n e r a l E l e c t r i c d i d n o t make s u c h an argument t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t . See S t a t e Farm Mut. A u t o . I n s . Co. v . M o t l e y , 909 So. 2d 806, 821 ( A l a . 2005) ("[An a p p e l l a t e c o u r t ] cannot c o n s i d e r arguments advanced f o r t h e purpose o f r e v e r s i n g t h e j u d g m e n t o f a t r i a l c o u r t when t h o s e a r g u m e n t s were n e v e r p r e s e n t e d t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t " ) . 1 11 2080324 p a r t i c u l a r member l i s t e d i n t h e s c h e d u l e . total loss of t h e use of a member" e q u i v a l e n t t o t h e l o s s o f t h a t member. The "permanent a n d i s considered the § 25-5-57(a)(3)d. i n j u r y t o a member t h a t r e s u l t s i n l e s s t h a n a t o t a l total loss o f u s e o f t h e member i s compensated An loss or "at the p r e s c r i b e d r a t e d u r i n g t h a t p a r t o f the time s p e c i f i e d i n t h e schedule f o r the t o t a l loss or t o t a l loss o f use o f t h e r e s p e c t i v e member w h i c h t h e e x t e n t o f t h e i n j u r y t o t h e member bears t o i t s t o t a l loss." § 25-5-57(a)(3)d. The t r i a l c o u r t , i n d e t e r m i n i n g t h e d e g r e e o f t h e l o s s o f use o f an e m p l o y e e ' s s c h e d u l e d member, " i s n o t b o u n d b y ... e x p e r t t e s t i m o n y a n d i s f r e e t o make i t s own o b s e r v a t i o n s a n d determine the extent of d i s a b i l i t y . " B E & K C o n s t r . Co. v . H a y e s , 666 So. 2d 1, 2 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 5 ) . duty of the t r i a l " [ I ] t i s the c o u r t , w h i c h h a s t h e o p p o r t u n i t y i n an o r e t e n u s p r o c e e d i n g , t o o b s e r v e t h e w i t n e s s e s a n d t h e i r demeanor, and n o t t h e a p p e l l a t e c o u r t , t o w e i g h t h e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d . " S m i t h v . QHG o f D o t h a n , I n c . , 872 So. 2d 197, 202 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2003). An e m p l o y e e ' s " v o c a t i o n a l d i s a b i l i t y ... i s n o t an a p p r o p r i a t e c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n c a s e s i n v o l v i n g i n j u r i e s t o a s c h e d u l e d member." S w i f t Lumber, I n c . v. Ramer, 875 So. 2d 12 2080324 1200, 1205 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 3 ) . I n D o w d e l l v. V e r m o n t A m e r i c a n C o r p . , 808 So. 2d 36 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 1 ) , t h i s c o u r t c o n s i d e r e d w h e t h e r an e m p l o y e e who l o s t approximately one-half of the f i r s t phalanx of her index f i n g e r l o s t t h e use o f h e r e n t i r e phalanx. "[U]nder Alabama law, compensation This court stated: f o r the loss of only part o f a p h a l a n x may be a w a r d e d as i f t h e e n t i r e p h a l a n x h a d b e e n lost where the remaining part of that p r a c t i c a l purposes, not usable." added) . phalanx i s , for a l l 808 So. 2d a t 39 (emphasis I n Ex p a r t e P u r i t a n B a k i n g Co., 208 A l a . 373, 375, 94 So. 347, 349 ( 1 9 2 2 ) , o u r supreme c o u r t s t a t e d : " [ I ] f t h e r e h a d been an a m p u t a t i o n resulting of a substantial i n the s t i f f e n i n g portion of the j o i n t of a phalange so a s , f o r a l l p r a c t i c a l purposes, t o d e s t r o y t h e use of t h a t phalange t o t h e workman, t h e n , w i t h i n t h e m e a n i n g o f t h e s t a t u t e , he h a s l o s t the same " (Emphasis added.) Thus, an injury s c h e d u l e d member t h a t r e n d e r s t h a t member, " f o r a l l purposes," useless c o n s t i t u t e s the t o t a l to a practical l o s s o f use o f t h a t member. We find Pennsylvania's workers' compensation l a w t o be i n s t r u c t i v e r e g a r d i n g what c o n s t i t u t e s a l o s s o f u s e f o r " a l l 13 2080324 practical purposes." determining Under whether an Pennsylvania injury to law, the t e s t f o r a scheduled member c o n s t i t u t e s t h e c o m p l e t e " l o s s " o f t h a t member i s " w h e t h e r t h e [employee] injured has s u f f e r e d t h e permanent member fora l l practical loss intents F a u l k n e r C a d i l l a c v . W o r k e r s ' Comp. A p p e a l A.2d f o r compensation regardless of whether f o r theloss the injury employee's e a r n i n g c a p a c i t y . In U n i t e d Appeal Board, States Steel and the purposes." Bd. ( T i n a r i ) , 831 1248, 1254 ( P a . Commw. C t . 2 0 0 3 ) . provides o f use o f Pennsylvania law o f s c h e d u l e d members effects the injured I d . a t 1252. C o r p . v . Workmen's C o m p e n s a t i o n 71 P a . Commw. 354, 454 A . 2 d 1180 ( 1 9 8 2 ) , t h e a p p e l l a t e c o u r t a f f i r m e d an a w a r d o f c o m p e n s a t i o n f o r t h e l o s s of t h e u s e o f an e m p l o y e e ' s United left States ankle. appellate Steel left leg. The e m p l o y e e i n 2 had chronic d i s a b l i n g synovitis of h i s 71 P a . Commw. a t 355, 454 A . 2 d a t 1 1 8 1 . The court i n that employee's l e f t - l e g case described the extent of the injury: R e g a r d i n g f a c t u a l i s s u e s , P e n n s y l v a n i a law, l i k e Alabama l a w , r e q u i r e s a f f i r m a n c e on a p p e a l i f s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e s u p p o r t s t h e f i n d i n g s on w h i c h t h e j u d g m e n t b e l o w i s b a s e d . 71 P a . Commw. a t 3 5 5 , 454 A . 2 d a t 1181. See § 2 5 - 5 - 8 1 ( e ) ( 2 ) , A l a . Code 1975. 2 14 2080324 "The [employee] t e s t i f i e d t h a t he i s u n a b l e t o s i t o r s t a n d f o r any g r e a t l e n g t h o f t i m e , t h a t w a l k i n g s h o r t d i s t a n c e s r e s u l t s i n p a i n , t h a t he c a n n o t l i f t e v e n t h e s l i g h t e s t amount o f w e i g h t o r engage i n any a t h l e t i c a c t i v i t y and t h a t he c a n n o t b e n d o r s q u a t without pain. " "... [The e m p l o y e e ' s p h y s i c i a n ] s t a t e d t h a t t h e [employee] could not d e p e n d upon h i s leg for s t r e n g t h , c o u l d n o t w a l k more t h a n a c o u p l e o f b l o c k s , c o u l d n o t c l i m b t h e s t a i r s f o r more t h a n a v e r y s h o r t t i m e , and c o u l d n o t use h i s l e f t l e g t o function in a normal fashion in any normal activities. We note that the [employee]'s own testimony supports the r e s u l t r e a c h e d by [the employee's physician] in that the [employee] t e s t i f i e d t h a t he has t r o u b l e s t a n d i n g , sitting, b e n d i n g , l i f t i n g , g e t t i n g i n t o and o u t o f c a r s , c l i m b i n g t h e s t a i r s and d o i n g a l m o s t 'any a c t i v i t y at 71 Pa. all.'" Commw. a t 356-57, 454 In Faulkner l o s s o f use mean that an an employee's injured 831 order hands A.2d body at at 1180. the supra, for a l l practical whatsoever." affirmed Cadillac, A.2d court i n t e n t s and part 1254. finding that constituted is In of noted that p u r p o s e s ' does not absolutely use that case, a chemical-burn the total hands " f o r a l l i n t e n t s and p u r p o s e s . " "'the loss no the court injury of I d . a t 1255. use to of The an the order was s u p p o r t e d by e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h e e m p l o y e e ' s " i n a b i l i t y to perform numerous routine 15 tasks associated with the 2080324 activities of daily living." Id. In that case, the e m p l o y e e ' s hands became numb and s t i f f a f t e r d r i v i n g , he n o t h o l d a cup a c o f f e e o r a c i g a r e t t e , he was the could unable to turn key t o u n l o c k h i s c a r d o o r , he u s e d V e l c r o so he d i d n o t have t o t i e h i s s n e a k e r s , and he used toothpaste i n order to brush h i s teeth. Returning t o our case, d i s c u s s e d t h e n a t u r e o f Mr. an oversized Id. at this court injury: " B a g g e t t f e l l a t work w h i l e l o a d i n g r e f r i g e r a t o r s o n t o a r a i l r o a d c a r . As a r e s u l t o f t h e a c c i d e n t , B a g g e t t f r a c t u r e d h i s l e f t a n k l e and t o r e c a r t i l a g e i n h i s l e f t knee. "In June 2001, Dr. S c o t t S h a r p o p e r a t e d on B a g g e t t ' s l e f t knee. Dr. S h a r p d e t e r m i n e d t h a t Baggett was able to return to work without r e s t r i c t i o n s on S e p t e m b e r 17, 2001. B a g g e t t began t o e x p e r i e n c e s w e l l i n g o f h i s l e f t knee soon a f t e r r e t u r n i n g t o work. On S e p t e m b e r 21, 2001, Dr. S h a r p gave B a g g e t t a s t e r o i d i n j e c t i o n i n h i s l e f t knee and a g a i n d e t e r m i n e d t h a t B a g g e t t was a b l e t o r e t u r n t o work. A l t h o u g h B a g g e t t c o n t i n u e d t o work h i s regular j o b , he received assistance from his c o w o r k e r s i n p e r f o r m i n g h i s d u t i e s due t o t h e p a i n i n h i s l e f t knee. " "In J a n u a r y 2003, Dr. J o h n H i g g i n b o t h a m , an o r t h o p e d i c s u r g e o n , o p e r a t e d on B a g g e t t ' s l e f t knee i n an a t t e m p t t o f u r t h e r r e p a i r t h e t o r n c a r t i l a g e i n t h a t knee. Baggett t e s t i f i e d that the c o n d i t i o n o f h i s l e f t knee d e t e r i o r a t e d a f t e r t h e J a n u a r y 2003 surgery. I n F e b r u a r y 2004, Dr. H i g g i n b o t h a m a g a i n 16 of 1254. i n General E l e c t r i c Baggett's l e f t - l e g tube 2080324 o p e r a t e d on B a g g e t t ' s l e f t knee. Dr. H i g g i n b o t h a m recommended t h a t B a g g e t t u n d e r g o a t o t a l joint r e p l a c e m e n t o f t h e l e f t knee. Dr. H i g g i n b o t h a m t e s t i f i e d that a t o t a l joint replacement would r e d u c e t h e p a i n i n B a g g e t t ' s l e f t knee t o t h e p o i n t where he would not require continual pain medication. Dr. H i g g i n b o t h a m s t a t e d t h a t B a g g e t t r e a c h e d maximum m e d i c a l i m p r o v e m e n t on May 14, 2004. "On M a r c h 16, 2005, D r . E r i c B e c k p e r f o r m e d a f u n c t i o n a l - c a p a c i t i e s e v a l u a t i o n ('FCE') on B a g g e t t . D u r i n g t h e FCE, B a g g e t t , u s i n g a 1 0 - p o i n t scale, r a t e d t h e c u r r e n t l e v e l o f p a i n i n h i s l e f t knee as a 7. Baggett r a t e d the average l e v e l of p a i n i n t h a t knee d u r i n g t h e p r e v i o u s month as a 7 on a 10p o i n t s c a l e , with 7 being the lowest l e v e l of pain and 9 t h e h i g h e s t l e v e l o f p a i n he h a d e x p e r i e n c e d d u r i n g t h a t p e r i o d . Dr. Beck a s s i g n e d t h e f o l l o w i n g r e s t r i c t i o n s t o B a g g e t t : o c c a s i o n a l l i f t i n g o f up t o 25 pounds a n d f r e q u e n t l i f t i n g o f up t o 20 p o u n d s , p r o v i d e d t h a t such l i f t i n g takes p l a c e between t h e k n u c k l e a n d t h e w a i s t w h i l e s t a n d i n g ; no more t h a n one h o u r s t a n d i n g a t a t i m e ; no more t h a n 15 m i n u t e s walking a t a time; no k n e e l i n g , crawling, or balancing; no w o r k i n g a t u n p r o t e c t e d heights or around moving machinery; and o c c a s i o n a l s q u a t t i n g , crouching, and c l i m b i n g . Pursuant t o g u i d e l i n e s e s t a b l i s h e d by t h e American M e d i c a l Association ('AMA'), D r . B e c k a s s i g n e d an 8% i m p a i r m e n t r a t i n g t o B a g g e t t ' s whole body. Dr. Beck t e s t i f i e d by d e p o s i t i o n t h a t he h a d a s s i g n e d t h e 8% i m p a i r m e n t rating according to specific AMA guidelines r e g a r d i n g t h e i n j u r i e s t o B a g g e t t ' s l e f t knee a n d l e f t ankle. " " B a g g e t t t e s t i f i e d a t t r i a l t h a t he must u s e a w a l k i n g cane 'about 90% o f t h e t i m e ' a n d t h a t he w e a r s a knee b r a c e on h i s l e f t knee a l l d a y . Baggett t e s t i f i e d t h a t , because o f t h e i n j u r i e s t o h i s l e f t l e g , he e x p e r i e n c e s p a i n when performing 17 2080324 any activity other than 'just s i t t i n g around.' B a g g e t t f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t he i s u n a b l e t o s q u a t and l i f t w i t h o u t e x p e r i e n c i n g p a i n . ... B a g g e t t t e s t i f i e d t h a t he u s e s o n l y C e l e b r e x , a p r e s c r i p t i o n nonsteroidal, anti-inflammatory medication, to relieve pain; Baggett does not use n a r c o t i c medication to relieve pain. Baggett further t e s t i f i e d t h a t he s o a k s i n a t u b w i t h a l c o h o l a n d Epsom s a l t s t o r e l i e v e p a i n a n d s w e l l i n g " 1 So. 3d a t 1016-17. In i t s November 2008 j u d g m e n t , t h e t r i a l court adopted t h e f i n d i n g s o f f a c t s made i n t h e December 2005 j u d g m e n t . its December benefit pertinent of 2005 j u d g m e n t , observing Mr. facts regarding the t r i a l Baggett court, at t r i a l , the l e f t - l e g 3 In which had the found these injury: "[Mr. B a g g e t t ] , who i s o b v i o u s l y i n p a i n a n d who has a s e v e r e l i m p , w a l k s w i t h a cane a n d a b r a c e on his l e f t l e g . He h a s t r o u b l e , a c c o r d i n g t o h i s testimony, lifting, standing and w a l k i n g . He t e s t i f i e d t h a t he i s u n a b l e t o k n e e l , c r a w l , s q u a t , c l i m b , b a l a n c e , s t o o p and bend. He s t a t e s t h a t he I n i t s November 2008 j u d g m e n t , t h e t r i a l c o u r t i n i t i a l l y s t a t e d t h a t i t was a d o p t i n g t h e c o n c l u s i o n s o f law and f i n d i n g s o f f a c t o f i t s December 2005 j u d g m e n t . Some o f t h e c o n c l u s i o n s a n d s u p p o r t i n g f a c t u a l f i n d i n g s i n t h e December 2005 j u d g m e n t , o f c o u r s e , a r e i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h i s c o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n i n G e n e r a l E l e c t r i c r e v e r s i n g t h a t judgment. We assume t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t , i n a d o p t i n g i t s c o n c l u s i o n s a n d f i n d i n g s f r o m t h e December 2005 j u d g m e n t , o b v i o u s l y i n t e n d e d t o a d o p t t h o s e c o n c l u s i o n s a n d f i n d i n g s i n s o f a r a s t h e y do n o t c o n f l i c t with General E l e c t r i c . None o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s p e r t i n e n t f i n d i n g s o f f a c t f r o m t h e December 2005 j u d g m e n t discussed herein c o n f l i c t with General E l e c t r i c . 3 18 2080324 i s u n a b l e t o engage i n h i s p r e v i o u s h o b b i e s o f playing with h i s grandchildren, running, and working. [Mr. B a g g e t t ] e x p e r i e n c e s p a i n on a d a i l y b a s i s .... H i s p a i n i s made w o r s e b y k n e e l i n g , w a l k i n g a n d movement. [Mr. B a g g e t t ] t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e p a i n i s made b e t t e r b y r e s t , m e d i c a t i o n s a n d heat, but that h i s medical c o n d i t i o n has n o t improved from p h y s i c a l therapy programs. II " A l l of the c r e d i b l e testimony before the Court i s t h a t [Mr. B a g g e t t ] was i n f a c t s e v e r e l y i n j u r e d on A p r i l 2, 2 0 0 1 , a n d t h a t h i s m e d i c a l status post-accident, including three surgeries and m u l t i p l e t h e r a p y e f f o r t s , h a s b e e n one o f g r a d u a l and c o n s t a n t d e p r e c i a t i o n . ... [Mr. B a g g e t t ] h a s d i f f i c u l t y performing n o r m a l d a i l y t a s k s , c a n no l o n g e r p e r f o r m b a s i c l i f e a c t i v i t i e s , and i s unable t o engage i n h i s p r e v i o u s h o b b i e s . [Mr. B a g g e t t ] has h a d t h r e e s u r g e r i e s on h i s l e f t knee, b u t continues t o have pain and d e b i l i t a t i o n . H i s c o m p l a i n t s o f p a i n a r e s i g n i f i c a n t and a r e c r e d i b l e to the Court." The record i n this case contains s u b s t a n t i a l evidence i n d i c a t i n g t h a t Mr. B a g g e t t l o s t t h e u s e o f h i s l e f t all practical States purposes. S i m i l a r t o t h e employee S t e e l , who " c o u l d n o t u s e h i s l e f t 454 A . 2 d a t 1 1 8 1 , Mr. B a g g e t t , experienced " d i f f i c u l t y performing i n United l e gto function i n a normal f a s h i o n i n any normal a c t i v i t i e s , " 356, 71 P a . Commw. a t because o f h i s i n j u r y , normal d a i l y t a s k s . " employee i n U n i t e s S t a t e s S t e e l had t r o u b l e p e r f o r m i n g 'any activity at a l l ' " due t o t h e p a i n c a u s e d b y h i s 19 leg for The "almost injury. 2080324 71 P a . Commw. a t 357, 454 A . 2 d a t 1180. B a g g e t t was e x t r e m e l y experienced pain performing s i t t i n g around." Cadillac, limited Similarly, in his activities any a c t i v i t y Mr. b e c a u s e he other than "just S i m i l a r t o t h e i n j u r e d employee i n F a u l k n e r who was u n a b l e " t o p e r f o r m numerous r o u t i n e associated with the a c t i v i t i e s tasks 831 A . 2 d a t Mr. B a g g e t t s t r u g g l e d t o p e r f o r m " b a s i c l i f e 1255, of d a i l y l i v i n g , " activities" and was " u n a b l e t o engage i n h i s p r e v i o u s h o b b i e s . " The l o s s of that t h e use o f a injured body Faulkner scheduled part Cadillac, i s of member "does absolutely no 831 A . 2 d a t 1254. n o t mean use Viewing whatsoever." the facts " i n t h e l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o t h e f i n d i n g s o f t h e t r i a l as this court i s r e q u i r e d t o do, Ex p a r t e we conclude determining use that the t r i a l l e g under § 25-5-57(a)(3). c o u r t d i d n o t e r r i n a w a r d i n g Mrs. d i d not e r r i n loss of Accordingly, the Baggett b e n e f i t s f o r injury. B a s e d on t h e f o r e g o i n g , is court 1102 ( A l a . t h a t Mr. B a g g e t t h a d s u s t a i n e d t h e t o t a l of h i s l e f t trial that court," P r o f e s s i o n a l Bus. Owners A s s ' n W o r k e r s ' Comp. Fund, 867 So. 2d 1099, 2003), an t h e judgment o f t h e t r i a l affirmed. 20 court 2080324 AFFIRMED. P i t t m a n a n d Thomas, J J . , concur. Thompson, P . J . , a n d Moore, without writings. 21 J . , concur i n the result,

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.