Thomas E. King - Page 7

                                                    7                                                     
            report and diagnosis of Dr. George.  In any event, the type of                                
            limitations described by petitioner do not rise to the level of a                             
            "permanent loss or loss of use of a member or function of the                                 
            body" under section 105(c).                                                                   
                  In West v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1992-617, the taxpayer                              
            fell off a scaffold and suffered a compression fracture of the                                
            thoracic spine which aggravated pre-existing injuries and                                     
            resulted in two spine infusions, disc disease, multiple problems                              
            with his neck and back, and arthritis.  The taxpayer was a                                    
            pipefitter and, after the fall, was unable to return to that type                             
            of work.  We held that the taxpayer's partial loss of the back                                
            function did not constitute the loss of a member or a bodily                                  
            function within the terms of section 105(c).  We based our                                    
            holding on the facts that the taxpayer was able to work in a less                             
            strenuous setting and the benefits received were based on the                                 
            taxpayer's years of service, not the type or severity of his                                  
            injury.                                                                                       
                  Likewise, in Hines v. Commissioner, 72 T.C. 715 (1979), we                              
            considered application of section 105(c) to a pilot who suffered                              
            a heart attack and lost the use of a portion of his heart.  We                                
            stated that "We do not think that the loss of the use of a                                    
            portion of the muscle tissue of the heart constitutes the loss of                             
            a member or of a bodily function."  Id. at 719.  In response to                               
            the taxpayer's argument that payment for an injury which robs an                              






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011