 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Cain v. WCAC Waste Management Inc.11/6/2003
FOR PUBLICATION
In Docket No. 242104, defendant Waste Management and its insurer appeal by leave granted from a May 24, 2002 order of the Worker 's Compensation Appellate Commission (WCAC), after remand from our Supreme Court awarding plaintiff total and permanent disability benefits. In Docket No. 242123, the Second Injury Fund (SIF), Total and Permanent Disability Provision, appeals by leave granted from the same order. These cases were consolidated for purposes of appeal. We affirm.
We are asked to determine: (1) whether the WCAC used the proper standard in determining "specific loss"; and (2) whether the WCAC could properly award plaintiff "total and permanent" disability benefits based on its finding that plaintiff suffered the specific loss of his left leg. After reviewing the decision in Cain v Waste Management, Inc, we find that our Supreme Court did not overrule or abrogate its previous decision in Pipe v Leese Tool & Die Co . In Pipe , the Court held that specific loss can be determined by applying the "loss of industrial use" standard. Accordingly, we uphold the WCAC's decision to affirm the magistrate's determination that plaintiff suffered a specific loss of his left leg, under MCL 418.361(2)(k), where plaintiff lost the industrial use of his leg in its uncorrected state. We additionally find that the WCAC properly awarded plaintiff total and permanent disability benefits under MCL 418.361(3)(b) for his specific (anatomical) loss of one leg and the specific (industrial) loss of his other leg. This was a reasonable construction of the statute and the only logical conclusion given the facts in this case. We find this to be especially true given the remedial nature of the Worker 's Disability Compensation Act (WDCA) and the WCAC's finding that plaintiff suffered the specific loss of both legs.
I. Facts and Procedural History
These appeals arise from injuries plaintiff suffered approximately fifteen years ago. The case has a lengthy appellate history, and the following facts are taken in large part from the facts stated by our Supreme Court in Cain .
Plaintiff worked as a truck driver and trash collector for defendant. In October 1988, as he was standing behind his vehicle emptying a rubbish container, he was struck by an automobile that crashed into the back of the truck. Plaintiff's legs were crushed. His right leg was amputated above the knee. Doctors were able to save his left leg with extensive surgery and bracing.
In February 1990, plaintiff was fitted with a right leg prosthesis, and he was able to begin walking. He returned to defendant's employ performing clerical duties. But plaintiff's left leg continued to deteriorate and in October, he suffered a distal tibia fracture. Doctors diagnosed it as a stress fracture caused by pre-existing weakness from the injury sustained in the accident. After extensive physical therapy and further surgery on his left knee, plaintiff was able to return to work in August 1991, first working as a dispatcher and then in the sales department. Defendant voluntarily paid plaintiff 215 weeks of worker 's compensation benefits for the "specific loss" of his right leg. But there was disagreement concerning whether plaintiff was entitled to additional benefits.
In August 1992, plaintiff filed a petition for "total and permanent disability benefits" for the "industrial loss of use of both legs." Without citing a particular section of MCL 418.361, plaintiff stated the following:
My legs were crushed in a motor vehicle accident resulting in an amputation above the knee of my right leg. The severity of my injuries to my left leg result in the industrial loss of use of
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Michigan Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|