Lee Connell Construction Company v. Swann

327 S.E.2d 222, 254 Ga. 121, 1985 Ga. LEXIS 641
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedMarch 15, 1985
Docket41677
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 327 S.E.2d 222 (Lee Connell Construction Company v. Swann) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Lee Connell Construction Company v. Swann, 327 S.E.2d 222, 254 Ga. 121, 1985 Ga. LEXIS 641 (Ga. 1985).

Opinions

Weltner, Justice.

We granted certiorari in this workers’ compensation case to determine the effect of a permanent lens implant, in a case wherein the full board has awarded compensation based upon 100% loss of use of the claimant’s eye. Lee Connell Constr. Co. v. Swann, 172 Ga. App. 305 (322 SE2d 736) (1984).

The claimant had not worn glasses prior to injury. After injury, his uncorrected vision was 20/400, equivalent to industrial blindness, and his vision as corrected by eyeglasses was 20/100. Following surgical removal of the injured cornea and the implant of the new, permanent lens, his uncorrected vision was 20/40 and his corrected vision 20/20.

The administrative law judge awarded compensation based upon his 20/40 vision. The full board reversed, and awarded 100% loss of use of the eye. The superior court and the Court of Appeals affirmed the award of the full board.

1. The Court of Appeals equated the permanent lens implant with the wearing of eyeglasses or contact lens. We disagree, and adopt the view — consistent with the facts of the case and the advances of medical science — that vision has been restored to the eye to the extent of the correction of visual acuity resulting from the permanent lens implant. Larson’s Workmen’s Compensation Law, § 58.13 (f).

2. The claimant’s uncorrected vision was 20/40 after vision had been restored to the eye through the surgical procedure. The administrative law judge was authorized to enter an award based upon the claimant’s need for eyeglasses after the surgical procedure to attain [122]*12220/20 corrected vision. Ga. Cas. &c. Co. v. Speller, 122 Ga. App. 459 (177 SE2d 491) (1970).

Decided March 15, 1985. Swift, Currie, McGhee & Hiers, George L. Pope, Jr., for appellants. Mundy & Gammage, John M. Strain, for appellee.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur, except Clarke, Smith and Gregory, JJ., who dissent.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Rockspring Development, Inc. v. Randy Brown
West Virginia Supreme Court, 2024
Vitti v. Milford
336 Conn. 654 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 2020)
State ex rel. General Electric Corp. v. Industrial Commission
103 Ohio St. 3d 420 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2004)
Creative Dimensions Group, Inc. v. Hill
430 S.E.2d 718 (Court of Appeals of Virginia, 1993)
Kalhorn v. City of Bellevue
420 N.W.2d 713 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1988)
State ex rel. Kroger Co. v. Stover
510 N.E.2d 356 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1987)
Lee Connell Construction Co. v. Swann
333 S.E.2d 450 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1985)
Lee Connell Construction Company v. Swann
327 S.E.2d 222 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1985)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
327 S.E.2d 222, 254 Ga. 121, 1985 Ga. LEXIS 641, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lee-connell-construction-company-v-swann-ga-1985.