The Claimant suffered a compensable back injury and was assigned a 40 percent impairment rating to the spine and a 36 percent rating to the whole person. The record contains no fewer than 40 physician notes about Claimant having nerve pain in places other than her back; furthermore, her treating physician not only added ten percent to his impairment rating for Claimant’s back because of her chronic pain, but he also diagnosed depression and referred her to a psychologist who confirmed a diagnosis of major depressive disorder. There is no doubt that the record contains ample markers of a colorable claim that the effects of Claimant’s back injury extend beyond her back.
We reverse and remand the Workers’ Compensation Commission’s decision, which simply proclaims, “This is a single-member injury affecting Claimant’s lower back only” and that Claimant was limited to the scheduled recovery statute. We remand for further proceedings, which should, at a minimum, evaluate the substance of Claimant’s general disability claim.
Since the Commission gave no reasoning in its order, we cannot say whether the Commission erred or was correct in its reasoning.
Although there is evidence of permanent and total disability in the record, we decline Claimant’s request that this court find she is permanently and totally disabled. Weighing impairment ratings as part of arriving at a percentage of disability strikes us as a task that the Legislature envisioned entrusting to members of the Commission, not to us.
We also respectfully reject the employer’s argument that the blood clots in Claimant’s lungs are an intervening cause of her present ailments as a matter of law.
Reversed and remanded.
Pate v. College of Charleston (Lawyers Weekly No. 011-043-22, 7 pp.) (Blake Hewitt, J.) Appealed from the Workers’ Compensation Commission. Stephen Benjamin Samuels and Max Capper Sparwasser for appellant; Margaret Mary Urbanic, Mikell Holbrook Wyman, Page Hilton and Kirsten Leslie Barr for respondents. S.C. App.