
    LENTZ v. MUMY WELL SERVICE.
    1. Workmen’s Compensation—Additional Compensation—Industrial Use op Hand—Evidence.
    Whether plaintiff sustained the loss of the industrial use of his hand as the result of accident for which he had been p^id for specific loss of 4 fingers held, an issue of fact under evidence presented in proceeding to recover additional workmen’s compensation.
    2. Same—Findings op Fact—Evidence—Supreme Court.
    The Supreme Court is bound by the factual conclusions arrived at by the workmen’s compensation commission, where there is testimony before the commission to support such conclusions (CL 1948, § 413.12).
    3. Same—Hand Injury—Industrial Use op Hand—Evidence.
    Evidence supported conclusion that plaintiff, a derrick man for well driller employer, without the aid of a prosthesis could not use his left hand for any ordinary industrial prehensile purpose and was limited to that of an unsatisfactory pushing or pulling instrumentality as the result of an accident for which he had been previously paid for the speeifie loss of 4 fingers; the primary function of the hand having been completely lost.
    4. Same—Additional Compensation—Industrial Loss op Use op Hand.
    Plaintiff, a derrick man for defendant well driller, held, entitled to additional compensation for the loss of the industrial use of his left hand, notwithstanding previous award for specific loss of 4 fingers, where such fingers had been severed at the metacarpophalangeal joints and thumb had sustained a lateral displacement rádialward at such joint in sueh a manner that the hand could no longer serve as a grasping industrial prehensile 'instrumentality.
    
      References for Points in Headnotes
    
       58 Am Jur, Workmen’s Compensation § 461.
    
       58 Am Jur, Workmen’s Compensation § 530.
    
       58 Am Jur, Workmen’s Compensation § 501.
    
      Appeal from Workmen’s Compensation Commission.
    Submitted April 6, 1954.
    (Docket No. 2, Calendar No. 45,985.)
    Decided June 7, 1954.
    Cloyce E. Lentz presented his claim for additional compensation against Mumy Well Service (J. 'E. Mumy), employer, and State Accident Fund, insurer, for injuries resulting in loss of hand and for which compensation for- loss of fingers only had been paid. Award to plaintiff. Defendants- appeal.
    Affirmed.
    
      Marcus, Kelman, Loria, McCrosTcey & Finucan (Benjamin Marcus, of counsel), for plaintiff.
    
      Harry F. Briggs (Stanley Dodge, of counsel), for defendants.
   Carr, J.

On the 8th of August, 1949, plaintiff was employed by the defendant'Mumy Well Service as a derrick man. In the course of his employment he sustained an accidental injury which resulted in the loss of the 4 fingers of his left hand, which were severed at the metacarpophalangeal joints. He was paid compensation at the. statutory rate for the loss ■of the fingers.' On February 20,1951, he made applicátion to the workmen’s compensation commission for hearing and adjustment of claim, on the basis of 'the' industrial loss''of use of the hand. .Defendants filed answer to the application, denying the right of plaintiff to further compensation benefits.

On the hearing before the deputy commissioner plaintiff offered no testimony other than his own. His claim as to the manner in which the accident happened'was not disputed. He testified with reference to the work that fie fiad done following tfie accident, stating tfiat tfie use of tfie left fiand resulted in a swollen condition and pain. At tfie suggestion of fiis doctor, fie wore a prosthetic device wfiicfi served to protect what remained of fiis fiand and to improve the use of it by allowing him to grasp light objects between tfie thumb and tfie device. He testified also to a limitation in tfie use of tfie thumb.

Following tfie initial hearing an operation was performed on plaintiff’s fiand for tfie removal of neuromata wfiicfi were painful. At a subsequent hearing there was offered by defendants, and received in evidence, a copy of tfie report of tfie surgeon performing tfie operation, who expressed tfie opinion tfiat tfie condition was “pretty well relieved.” Other than this report no medical testimony or proof as to tfie opinion of any medical expert was introduced. Tfie deputy came to tfie conclusion that plaintiff had not established any disability as a result of tfie accident, other than the loss of the fingers, and denied additional compensation. Plaintiff appealed to tfie commission.

Following tfie appeal, plaintiff through fiis counsel made application to the commission for leave to take additional proofs. An order was entered accordingly, and the depositions of medical experts were taken and filed. Tfie additional proofs thus introduced referred not only to tfie loss of tfie fingers but also to tfie condition of tfie fiand and of tfie thumb. With reference to tfie thumb, one of tfie witnesses deposed tfiat it presented a lateral displacement of tfie metacarpophalangeal joint radial-ward, and tfiat such displacement amounted to approximately two-tfiirds of tfie width of the joint surface of the corresponding metacarpal bone. Tfie same witness further testified as follows:

“If there are any residual fingers or phalanxes, bony material of the approximental phalanx of the 4 fingers remaining to the degree that this residual remains, the hand forms a relatively more or less effective grasping instrument by the effect of this cup and the approximation of the thumb to the residual phalanx substance. When, as in this man, there is total loss of the 4 fingers through the metacarpophalangeal joints, which removes the entire portion of the hand to which the thumb can approximate in a cupping fashion, we have sacrificed our grasping effective industrial use of that hand. There is a small use of the thumb to the palm, but it is mere approximation which leaves a residual use of the 2 stumps, the thumb and the pad, but they no longer function as a grasping industrial prehensile instrument of effective application of force. In this man the dislocation of the thumb with a partial loss of efficiency and even further loss of effective application of the thumb to the palm makes the residual stump even less effective as a stump.”

The commission came to the conclusion that plaintiff had suffered disability other than from the loss of the 4 fingers, resulting from the swelling of the hand on use and the lateral displacement of the thumb. It was specifically found that such displacement resulted in an angulation of the thumb to such an extent as to prevent plaintiff from grasping or lifting objects except by the use of the prosthetic device. The conclusion was reached, in consequence, that plaintiff had lost the industrial use of his left hand as a result of the injury sustained in August, 1949. An order for the payment of additional compensation was entered accordingly. Prom such order defendants have appealed.

Whether plaintiff sustained the loss of the industrial use of his hand as a result of the accident in question was an issue of fact. Rench v. Kalamazoo Stove & Furnace Co., 286 Mich 314; Rupp v. Hutter Construction Co., 288 Mich 105. If there was testimony before the commission supporting its factual conclusions, this Court is bound thereby. CL 1948, § 413.12 (Stat Ann § 17.186). Shaw v. General Motors Corporation, 320 Mich 338, 345. As above indicated, the testimony in the record before us supports the conclusion that without the aid of a prosthesis plaintiff cannot use his left hand for any ordinary industrial prehensile purpose. The primary function of the hand is completely lost. At most its use is limited to that of an unsatisfactory pushing or pulling instrumentality.

Appellants rely on the decisions of this Court in Hlady v. Wolverine Bolt Company, 325 Mich 23; Utter v. Ottawa Metal Company, 326 Mich 450; and Barnett v. Kelsey-Hayes Wheel Company, 328 Mich 37. In each of these cases, however, the record furnished no basis. for a finding that the plaintiff had sustained a loss other than that resulting from the amputations of the fingers or portions thereof. In the Hlady Case it was declared in the opinion that (p 25): ■ ■

“The récord is devoid of testimony tending to prove that plaintiff has suffered any different :or greater loss than normally results, from the amputation of 4 fingers of a hand. Notwithstanding plaintiff claimed that the amputation of her fingers resulted in disabling ‘sequelae’ and ‘general disability,’ the commission found none except disability which, normally follows such amputations.”

The Court further distinguished the case of Lovalo v. Michigan Stamping Co., 202 Mich 85, on which plaintiff in the instant case relief. In the Utter Case neither thumb was injured, and the amputation was of portions of the fingers on each hand. In the Barnett Case the extent of injuries was less than in either the Hlady or the Utter Case. ,

In the case at bar there is testimony supporting the finding of the commission that plaintiff has sustained a greater loss than normally results from the amputation of the 4 fingers óf a hand. The -impairment of the normal functioning of the thumb resulting from 'the dislocation referred to by the medical witnesses in their testimony, and the swelling of the hand when used, are added factors preventing such,industrial use as, might otherwise be possible.

,, The order of the compensation commission is affirmed,- ydth- costs to plaintiff.

• "Butzel, C. .J., and Bushnell, Sharpe, Boyles, Reid/ Dethmers, and Kelly, JJ., concurred.  