The question in this case is whether, for the purpose of calculating Workers’ Compensation schedule-loss-of-use benefits, an award for loss of function of one part of a limb can properly be deducted from a later award for loss of function of a different part of the same limb.
The Workers’ Compensation Law entitles a worker to benefits for workplace injuries that reduce her earning capacity. For injuries to certain body parts, the law fixes the amount of a worker’s benefit based on the worker’s loss of use for that body part. Thus, a worker who loses 60 percent of the use of her left leg is entitled to a certain benefit, while a worker who loses on 30 percent of the use of her leg is awarded a lower benefit. Such awards are called schedule loss of use (SLU) awards.
What happens, however, to a worker who sustains separate injuries to different elements of the same body part? In this case, claimant injured his hips in an accident that resulted in a 50 percent loss of use of his left leg and a 52.5 percent loss of use to his right leg. In a separate accident, claimant injured his knees, resulting in an 80 percent loss of use to his left leg and a 40 percent loss of use to his right leg. Claimant obtained an SLU award for each leg based on his hip injury, and separately sought an SLU award for each leg based on his knee injury. An administrative law judge awarded benefits, but reduced the award to reflect the earlier award that claimant received for his hip injury.
The Board upheld that determination, and the Third Department affirmed. The court reasoned that a SLU award is for the overall loss of use of a worker’s body part, not for discrete injuries to that body part, and must therefore encompass earlier loss-of-use findings for the same body part. Thus, because claimant was already compensated for a 50 percent loss-of-use of his left leg, the newer 80 percent loss-of-use of finding for that same leg only entitled claimant to compensation for an additional 30 percent loss-of-use that was not encompassed in his earlier SLU award. The court explained that this rule prevented workers from obtaining a “monetary windfall” by obtaining successive SLU awards for a single body part that, in the aggregate, exceeded the total loss of use that the worker actually experienced.
The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.