Court Opinion

ID: 9547919
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:54:16.175782+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:18:14.683161
License: Public Domain

EOSSMAN, J., specially concurring.
I do not believe that the second division of OES 656.022(2), which the majority employs in part in reaching its decision, authorizes an award of compensation to the plaintiff. That part reads:
“ * * * nor shall his workmen wholly engaged in such separate nonhazardous occupations be subject thereto except by an election as authorized by OES 656.034.”
*148That provision is applicable only to workmen who are “wholly engaged in such separate nonhazardous occupations.” The workman in the case at bar, far from being wholly engaged in a nonhazardous occupation, devoted ninety-five per cent of his time to a hazardous occupation and only five per cent to the nonhazardous. The provision is inapplicable to the plaintiff and therefore does not entitle him to compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act.
Subject to the above limitation, I concur in the opinion of Mr. Justice Brand.