Norman McNally v. Douglas Brothers, Inc., et al.
Case Date: 12/23/2003
Court: Supreme Court
Docket No: 2003 ME 155
|
Download PDF Back to Opinions Page
MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT Reporter of Decisions Decision: 2003 ME 155 Docket: WCB-03-105 Submitted On Briefs: October 23, 2003 Decided: December 23, 2003
Panel: SAUFLEY, C.J., and CLIFFORD, RUDMAN, DANA, ALEXANDER, CALKINS, and LEVY, JJ.
NORMAN McNALLY
v.
DOUGLAS BROTHERS, INC., et al.
LEVY, J. [¶1] Norman McNally appeals from a decision of a hearing officer of the Workers' Compensation Board (Johnson, HO), denying his petition for specific loss benefits for the loss of three fingers pursuant to 39-A M.R.S.A. § 212(3)(F) (2001). McNally contends that the loss of the first phalange and the partial loss of the second phalange of each of the three fingers constitutes the total loss of those fingers pursuant to the statute. We agree and vacate the decision. I. BACKGROUND [¶2] Norman McNally began working for Douglas Brothers, Inc. in 1978. McNally injured his fingers while operating a press machine on April 5, 1999, resulting in the surgical removal of portions of the middle, ring, and pinky fingers of his right hand. McNally is right hand dominant. He returned to work after the injury in a light-duty capacity and was laid off in February 2001. McNally currently works full time for another employer as a maintenance employee. [¶3] Douglas Bros. voluntarily paid specific loss benefits to McNally for the loss of the first (distal) phalanges of each of the three severed fingers. In December 2001, McNally filed petitions for award of incapacity and specific loss benefits, seeking compensation for the loss of his entire three fingers.[1] The hearing officer granted that portion of the petition seeking incapacity benefits and awarded continuing partial incapacity benefits based on the difference between McNally's pre-injury and post-injury wages, but denied the claim for additional specific loss benefits. [¶4] The hearing officer based her denial of additional specific loss benefits on medical evidence that established that McNally lost the first phalange of each of the three fingers, but suffered only "10% or less loss [of] the middle phalanges of said fingers." This evidence was considered relative to the statutory directive contained in 39-A M.R.S.A. § 212(3)(F) that "[t]he loss of more than one phalange is considered as the loss of the entire finger or thumb." The hearing officer construed this provision to mean "that another entire phalange must be lost in order for it to be considered |