- 11 - respondent's analysis of the facts. We listened to petitioner's credible testimony about his condition from 1986 forward and reviewed documentary evidence of petitioner's condition, which evidence included several letters from physicians who examined petitioner at relevant times.7 We are convinced that petitioner's condition is severe and permanent and has left him without functional use of his hands, legs and feet. Petitioner's polyneuropathy robbed him not only of his ability to function as a general surgeon but also of his ability to lead the life he enjoyed before his condition. See, e.g., Maller v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1984-614 (wherein the parties stipulated loss of sight was loss of a body function); Berner v. United States, 81-2 USTC par. 9733 (W.D. Pa. 1981) (wherein taxpayer's loss of virtually all respiratory function was loss of a body function). Petitioner has satisfied the first element of section 105(c). The parties stipulated the second element of section 105(c) for the Provident policy. Regarding the Monarch policy, the payments must be computed with regard to the nature of the injury and must not be computed with regard to the period the employee is absent from work. See sec. 105(c)(2); Hines v. 7We also observed petitioner at trial and noted his weak condition and difficulty moving around. While the trial was several years after the years in issue, we conclude based upon this record that petitioner's condition was substantially similar during the years in issue.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011