Potomac Electric Power Co. v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs

1980-12-15

Headline: Workplace injury awards limited as Court rules workers with scheduled injuries cannot choose a higher wage-loss formula, forcing many injured workers to accept fixed schedule payments even if lost pay is larger.

Holding: The Court held that an employee with a permanent partial injury covered by the statute's schedule must accept the fixed schedule payment and cannot choose the larger wage-loss award based on actual lost earnings.

Real World Impact:

Workers with scheduled injuries must take fixed schedule payments even if lost wages are higher.
Some injured workers may be substantially undercompensated compared with wage-loss awards.
Congress may need to change the schedule to fix recurring unfair outcomes.

Topics: workers' compensation, workplace injuries, wage loss, benefits schedule

Summary

Background

A worker named Cross, a cable splicer for Potomac Electric Power Company, injured his left knee on the job in 1974. He had earned about $21,959 that year with heavy overtime, but after the injury his earnings fell sharply; doctors described a 5–20% loss of use of his leg while his earning capacity fell by over 40%. Cross kept his job but lost overtime and raises. He sought compensation based on his actual lost wages rather than the fixed schedule amount. An Administrative Law Judge, the Benefits Review Board, and the Court of Appeals awarded the larger wage-loss recovery.

Reasoning

The Court asked whether a worker covered by the schedule may elect the wage-loss formula. It emphasized that the schedule lists twenty specific injuries and that the statute then provides the wage-loss rule only "in all other cases." The majority read "other" literally and concluded the schedule controls when an injury is listed. The Court noted the federal Act mirrored an earlier New York law and that long judicial practice favored exclusivity. It held remedial goals could not override plain statutory language.

Real world impact

The decision forces workers who suffer one of the scheduled injuries to accept the fixed schedule payment even when their actual loss of earnings is much larger. Some injured workers may be substantially undercompensated compared with the wage-loss measure. The Court suggested that if anomalies are frequent, Congress should revise the schedule; until then the statutory limits control.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Blackmun dissented, arguing the statute should allow an election between the schedule and wage-loss measures to avoid harsh, incongruous results and that Cross would be severely undercompensated under the Court’s reading.