Title: Glass v. Edens

State: arkansas

Issuer: Arkansas Supreme Court

Document:

346 S.W.2d 685 (1961) O. P. GLASS, Appellant, v. Murrell EDENS, Employer, et al., Appellees. No. 5-2422. Supreme Court of Arkansas. June 5, 1961. *686 Spencer & Spencer, El Dorado, for appellant. Wright, Lindsey, Jennings, Lester & Shults, Little Rock, for appellees. JOHNSON, Justice. On October 23, 1958, the appellant suffered a heart attack. In an opinion filed October 30, 1959, a referee of the Workmen's Compensation Commission held that the heart attack was a compensable injury. There was no appeal from this decision. Subsequently, another hearing was held to determine the extent of appellant's disability and in an opinion filed September 30, 1960, another referee found the appellant to have a permanent partial disability rating of 40% to the body as a whole. The Full Commission and the Circuit Court affirmed this decision, hence this appeal. The appellant contends that he is totally disabled within the meaning of the Arkansas Workmen's Compensation Act. The appellees rely on two points: 1. That there is substantial evidence to sustain the decision of the Commission, and; 2. That under the Workmen's Compensation Act, the compensation paid to appellant must be for the proportionate loss of use to the body as a whole. Under the view we take of the case, only the second contention of appellees will be considered. Ark.Stats., § 81-1313(d), provides: Appellees contend that this amended section of the Workmen's Compensation Act makes all injuries scheduled injuries and that an injured employee should only be paid for functional loss of use of his body. We feel the Legislature's use of the term "loss of use of the body as a whole" in Ark.Stats., § 81-1313(d), when read in the light of other sections of the Workmen's Compensation Law, which are not in conflict therewith, does not mean merely functional disability but includes, in varying degrees in each instance, loss of use of the body to earn substantial wages. In Larson on Workmen's Compensation Law, § 57.10, it is stated: The referee before whom the case was first tried stated in his opinion: The maximum medical rating of disability in this case was 40%, which was allowed by the referee and affirmed by the Full Commission. Apparently, they also considered only medical evidence and this we consider error. Under the rule as set out in Larson, consideration should have been given, along with the medical evidence, to the appellant's age, education, experience, and other matters affecting wage loss. Therefore, for the error indicated, the cause is reversed and remanded to the Circuit Court with directions to remand to the Workmen's Compensation Commission for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.