AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Worker appealed from an order of the Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) awarding her 115 weeks of benefits for an injury to her foot at the ankle. The Worker argued that her injury to the upper part of the ankle, resulting in partial loss of use of the ankle, should be considered an injury to her "leg between knee and the ankle," which would entitle her to compensation for 130 weeks for the ankle injury and an additional 115 weeks for a separate injury to her foot (para 1).

Procedural History

• Appeal from the Workers’ Compensation Administration: The Workers’ Compensation Judge awarded the Worker 115 weeks of benefits for a scheduled injury to “one foot at the ankle”.

Parties' Submissions

• Worker-Appellant: Contended that the injury to the upper part of the ankle should be classified as an injury to the "leg between knee and the ankle," compensable under a different subsection of the Workers’ Compensation Act, and argued for compensation for both the ankle and a separate foot injury (paras 1, 6).
• Employer/Self-Insured-Appellees: Argued that the phrase “at the ankle” includes the whole joint, supporting the WCJ's decision that the injury is compensable under the subsection pertaining to “one foot at the ankle” (para 7).

Legal Issues

• Whether an injury to the upper part of the ankle, resulting in partial loss of use of the ankle, is an injury to the Worker’s “leg between knee and the ankle,” compensable under a different subsection of the Workers’ Compensation Act (para 1).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the Workers’ Compensation Judge, holding that an ankle injury is a scheduled injury to the “foot at the ankle,” compensable under the relevant subsection, and entitles the Worker to 115 weeks of compensation (para 1).

Reasons

• Per Yohalem, J. (Medina, J., and Baca, J., concurring):
  The Court conducted a de novo review of the statutory interpretation issue presented (para 4).
  The Court found the language of the relevant subsection ambiguous when considered in isolation and turned to the legislative intent, concluding that the Legislature intended to treat each listed body member as a functional unit. It reasoned that it makes no sense to divide a joint into two parts for compensation purposes (paras 8-11).
  The Court disagreed with the Worker’s contention that the Legislature intended to designate a dividing line between the ankle and the leg based on anatomical drawings, finding such arguments speculative (para 9).
  The Court distinguished the Worker’s reliance on precedent regarding injuries to the shoulder or hip, explaining that those cases turned on the legislative purpose of the schedule of injuries and the distinction between scheduled injuries and injuries to the whole body. The Court found that the ankle, unlike the shoulder or hip, is part of a limb and not part of the main body (paras 13-17).
  The Court noted that the Workers’ Compensation Administration has consistently applied the “at [a joint]” language to include all injuries to that joint, supporting the WCJ’s decision (para 18).
  The Court summarily rejected the Worker’s remaining arguments based on its conclusion regarding the classification of the Worker’s ankle injury (para 19).