Case Brief - County of Dane v. LIRC and Gloria Graham

December 28, 2009

County of Dane v. LIRC and Gloria Graham
306 Wis. 2d 830, 744 N.W. 2d 613



Key Facts:
Gloria Graham was a Dane County food service worker, and on July 9, 2001 Graham slipped and fell on a wet floor while working. Her leg was twisted behind her back resulting in a significant knee injury. She had surgery but recovery did not go well, resulting in significant strength loss and pain in her knee. Graham cannot walk without a cane and has a pronounced foot-dragging limp.
Dane County paid for temporary disability, permanent partial disability and medical expenses. However, Graham also sought disfigurement, which Dane County denied. Graham filed an application for hearing for that issue.

Prior Proceedings:
The administrative law judge, LIRC, the Circuit Court and the Appellate Court all affirmed the awarding of the disfigurement benefit to Graham.

Issue:
Is the result of Graham's workplace injury compensable under Wis. Stat. §102.56(1) for disfigurement?

Holding:
The Supreme did agree with the previous proceedings and awarded the disfigurement benefit.

Reasoning:
The issue at hand was if the workplace injury Graham sustained compensable for disfigurement as she claimed. The Supreme Court looked at precedent in LIRC, as well as the statutes plain meaning and statute history regarding disfigurement. The Court concluded that while LIRC is the agency in charge of worker's compensation laws application and review, the inconsistent decisions made regarding disfigurement, as brought before the Court by the respondent and petitioner (Spence v. POJA Heating & Sheet Metal Co., [LIRC Jan. 20, 1994]. Jorgensen v. Wisconsin Department of Veterans Affairs, [LIRC Oct. 10, 1986]) as well as the decision made in the current case of Graham, gave the LIRC decision no deference and therefore, the Court gave a de novo review of the agency's interpretation of the statute.
The Court used Black's Dictionary to look up the definition of disfigurement, and found that disfigurement meant, " that which impairs or injuries the beauty, symmetry, or appearance of a person or thing; that which renders unsightly, misshapen, or imperfect, or deforms in some manner." This definition was also used in an Illinois worker's compensation case decided by the Illinois Supreme Court. The Wisconsin Supreme Court concluded from that outside information that the plain meaning of disfigurement encompasses an impairment that significantly affects the appearance of a person.
Statute history was looked at to determine the intent of the legislature for disfigurement claims. There had been a shift from disfigurement being focused on the face or head being permanently disfigured in 1915, to being not limited to a specific body part that would occasion potential loss of wage in 1971. The current amendment of 1978 included that if the appearance of an employee presents to others may cause the others to believe that the employee is less capable, that would be disfigurement.
Looking at the previous information, the Court decided that four requirements must be satisfied in order for disfigurement to be awarded. First, the disfigurement must be permanent. Second, it must cause occasion potential wage loss and it must be taken into account the age, education, present occupation and earnings and the likelihood of suitable occupational change of the employee. Third, the disfigurement must occur in an area of the body that is exposed during the normal course of employment. And lastly, the appearance, location and likelihood of exposure in the occupation that the employee is suitable for must also be taken into account. If the four requirements are met, then the statute's plain meaning requires the employee to be compensated.
In conclusion, the Court found that Graham did have a disfigurement, as she satisfied the four requirements of the statute.

Disposition:
The Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of the Court of Appeals, Circuit Court and LIRC based on the plain meaning of the statute.