Court Opinion

ID: 9583354
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:37:55.876272+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:38:58.478861
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Bell, Judge.
On motion for rehearing, the defendant in error vigorously contends that the holding in this case is not in accord with those in the cases of Travelers Insurance Co. v. Colvard, 70 Ga. App. 257 (28 S. E. 2d 317) and Wiley v. Bituminous Cas. Co., 76 Ga. App. 862 (47 S. E. 2d 652). We do not agree with this argument for the simple reason that a careful reading of these cases shows all three of them to be fully compatible and harmonious.
We adhere to our holding that where there are specific losses as listed in Code Ann. § 114-406, the amounts payable for the bodily members as listed in the schedule there must be awhrded as a minimum, and that an estimation of percentage of partial *591loss of use of the hand as a whole, caused by amputations of three fingers combined with a 100% loss of use of the fourth finger and a total or partial amputation of the thumb, cannot be applied to• the partial loss of use of the hand as a whole so as to give the claimant a lesser award.
While the general rule of interpretation of statutes which are derogatory to the common law is that they should be strictly construed, under many decisions of this court the workmen’s compensation law is to be liberally construed in order to effect its beneficent purposes. New Amsterdam Casualty Co. v. Sumrell, 30 Ga. App. 682, 689 (118 S. E. 786); Blackshear v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 69 Ga. App. 790, 804 (26 S. E. 2d 793); Lee v. Claxton, 70 Ga. App. 226 (28 S. E. 2d 87); Wilson v. Maryland Cas. Co., 71 Ga. App. 184, 188 (30 S. E. 2d 420).
Where there is evidence of loss or loss of use of the fingers and also testimony showing an injury to the hand other than to the fingers, the board must give an award equal to the percentage of loss of use of the hand as a whole or the statutory amount for loss of the fingers, whichever is the greater.

Motion for rehearing denied.

Felton, C. J., and Nichols, J., concur.