Court Opinion

ID: 9543002
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:41:04.588154+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:09:26.090744
License: Public Domain

WOLFE, Justice
(concurring in the results).
I concur in the results on the ground that the words in Sec. 42 — la—13 (b) (3), U. C. A. 1943, reading
“* * * except in those cases where death results during a period of continuous total disability from silicosis for which compensation has been paid or awarded* *
mean that the condition of having been paid or awarded for the total permanent disability from silicosis must have already happened at the time of the death. That condition was not met in this case. This makes it unnecessary to determine whether, absent these words, there would have vested in the decedent during his life, compensation due to him for total disability from silicosis, although none had been paid nor awarded. And it makes it unnecessary to determine whether the Heiselt case was correctly decided when it held that compensation for the loss of a bodily member, definitely granted by statute, accrues under an award or by payment of the compensation; or whether it accrues by virtue of the statute. My inclination is to favor the view that in cases, at least where the extent of disability is not definite and not fixed by an award nor recognized by evidence of payment, the amounts must accrue under an award or its equivalent, whatever the equiv*58alent may be, so as to pass to the estate as vested compensation accrued during the lifetime. In short, at least as to compensation not fixed in amount or extent, as in the case of a specific payment for the loss of a part of the body, there is no accrual of compensation during the lifetime of the injured person until it has accrued under an award or its equivalent. But I need not determine that question in this case because of the reason given above.