OPINION
This is аn original proceeding to review an order of a Workers’ Compensation Court three-judge panel modifying the trial court’s awаrd of temporary total disability benefits. Based upon our review of the record and applicable law, we sustain the order.
I
Clаimant D.J. Speer filed a Form 3 alleging he sustained a “hernia” as a result of “[cjonstant and daily lifting of 55-60 lbs. of material and stacHng” during the coursе of his employment with Petrolite Specialty
The claimant sought temporary total disability “hernia benefits” pursuant to 85 O.S.Supp.1995, § 22(3)(a), which states in relevant part: “In case of an injury resulting in hernia, temporary total compensation for fourteen (14) weeks, and the cost of the operation shall be payable.... ” The claimant сontended that because he had suffered bilateral herniae, he had in fact suffered two injuries and was therefore entitled to 28 wеeks of compensation.
The employer denied the injury was work related, and asserted that if the claim is compensable, benefits should be limited to 14 weeks of compensation.
The trial court held a hearing June 13, 1995, and entered an order finding “the claimant sustained two (2) hernias at separate injury sites” and awarding him 28 weeks of temporary total disability compensation.
The employer aрpealed to a three-judge panel, which modified the order to award 14 weeks of temporary total disability benefits “as a result of said hernia.” The claimant seeks our review.
II
It is undisputed that competent evidence supports the finding of a work-related injury. Wе are presented with a medico-legal issue: Whether bilateral inguinal herniae, caused by cumulative trauma and diagnosed simultaneously, cоnstitute a single injury or separate compensable injuries under § 22(3)(a). The claimant asserts the issue is one of first impression in this jurisdiction.
The claimant submitted the only medical evidence regarding the nature of his injury. The claimant’s expert supplemented his original report and described “repeated trauma injury as a result of constant lifting of 30-60 pound items on a daily basis from 5/24/94 to approximately 10/28/94” resulting in “bilateral inguinal hernias.... with bilateral inguinal hernia repairs_” (Emphasis added.) He concluded that the claimant had suffered “bilateral inguinal hernias ” and thеrefore “should be entitled to 14 weeks compensation per hernia, for a total of 28 weeks compensation, as set forth in the Workman’s [sic] Compensation Act.” (Emphasis added.)
Thе doctor has deviated from his role as medical expert. It is for this court, not the medical expert, to apply the law to thе facts and determine, as a matter of law, the compensation to which the claimant is entitled under the Act.
The claimant contends that the legislature has provided a form of liquidated damages for hernia injuries which should, by analogy, be treated similarly to other sсheduled members under the Act. He argues that under a “scheduled member analy-sis_ [i]f compensation is awarded separately for а right hand or right foot, then compensation should also be awarded separately for a right inguinal hernia, as opposed to а left inguinal hernia.”
Our research reveals that, although the precise issue before us has not been addressed by our supreme court, the court has sustained orders limiting temporary total disability benefits for bilateral, or double herni-ae to the amount stated in § 22. For exаmple, in
Century Granite Co. v. McDowell,
Section 22, establishing a schedule of compensation for all classes of injuriеs, is comprehensive, complete, and exclusive; awards may be made only upon the basis set forth therein.
Manhattan Long Constr. Co. v. Breedlove,
The legislature is presumed to have expressed its intent in statutory enactments and, except when a contrary intention plainly appears, words in a statute are to be given their plain and ordinary meaning.
We hold that temporary total disability benefits for bilateral hemiae caused by an employment-related accidental injury аre contemplated by, and thus subject to, § 22’s 14-week limit unless medical evidence supports the conclusion that the hemiae were caused by separate and distinct work-related accidents. Such evidence is absent from the record before us, and therefore we sustain the order under review.
ORDER SUSTAINED.