 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
CORBETT v. S.C. DEPT. OF YOUTH SERVICES2/24/1992
Heard Jan. 21, 1992.
Decided Feb. 24, 1992.
The sole issue we address in this appeal is whether damage or destruction to a prosthesis which is a substitute for a natural body part and attached to the body at the time of the accident is compensable under workers' compensation when the accident is attenuated with other physical injury . We hold it is and affirm.
FACTS
The facts are uncontroverted. Mary Corbett's dentures were destroyed in an accident arising out of and in the course of her employment. Mary Corbett was an employee of the Department of Youth Services. Two of the "clients" were involved in an altercation which Ms. Corbett attempted to end. In the process, she was hit in the mouth injuring her lip and breaking her dentures. She claimed the cost of replacement dentures and dentist bills as a result of the accident under workers' compensation. The carrier denied coverage. The single commissioner granted relief, the full commission affirmed, the circuit court affirmed and this appeal followed.
LAW/ANALYSIS
The carrier argues that injury or destruction of a prosthesis is not physical injury under S.C. Code Ann. § 42-1-160 (1976).
A more progressive, and it seems to us more persuasive, line of cases began with Baker v. Pittsburgh Forgings Co., 189 Pa. Super. 469, 151 A.2d 810 (1959). In Baker the worker was injured when a heavy piece of steel fell on his head causing serious concussion, laceration of the scalp and broken dentures. Id., 151 A.2d at 811. The Pennsylvania Court held that broken dentures were within the meaning of physical injury under their statute. Similarly in LaRose v. Wurzburger Hof, 28 A.D.2d 185, 283 N.Y.S.2d 902 (1967), the New York court found that a worker's dentures were within the meaning of physical injury when the injury to the prosthesis was attenuated with other bodily injury. This is the position adopted by the South Carolina Court of Appeals in Lail v. Richland Wrecking Company, Inc., 280 S.C. 532, 313 S.E.2d 342 (Ct. App. 1984). We think S.C. Code Ann. § 42-1-160 (1976) defines
Next, the carrier argues that under this court's interpretation of S.C. Code Ann. § 42-15-60 (1976 & 1980) in Smith v. Eagle Construction Co., 282 S.C. 140, 318 S.E.2d 8 (1984) recovery is barred. S.C. Code § 42-15-60 reads in part:
Medical, surgical, hospital and other treatment,
including medical and surgical supplies as may reasonably
be required, . . . to effect a cure or give relief . . . and, in
addition thereto, such original artificial members as may
be reasonably necessary at the end of the healing period
shall be provided by the employer. [Emphasis added.]
In Smith this Court held that under S.C. Code Ann. § 42-15-60 (1976) an employer was not responsible for replacement prosthesis when the employer provided an original prosthesis
We note that at least eleven states and the federal workers' compensation statutes have been amended since 1951 to provide for repair or replacement of prosthesis when the prosthesis is damaged or destroyed in a work-related accident. See 1B Arthur Larson, The Law of Workmen's Compensation, §§ 42.12-42.13 (1991). The rule we adopt today is much narrower than many of our sister states. However, we are constrained by our statute as it exists.
The carrier's remaining exceptions are without merit. We affirm the circuit court.
HARWELL, C.J., FINNEY, MOORE, JJ., and Acting Associate Justice ALEXANDER M. SANDERS, Jr., concur.
Page 1 South Carolina Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|