Court Opinion

ID: 9553555
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 19:31:50.239987+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:31:35.048757
License: Public Domain

HENRIOD, Justice
(concurring and dissenting) :
I concur, except for that part of the main opinion having to do with intelligence quotient.
The main opinion cites United Park City Mines Co. v. Prescott for the proposition that compensability might be founded on “advanced age, limited, education, and other abilities to rate him as totally disabled.” The United Park City Mines did not say that. It said “or any other work which a man of his capabilities may be able to do or to learn to do.” There is a difference that does not justify the gratuity of the main opinion to the effect that “if the age of an injured employee can be considered in determining his ability to be rehabilitated, it would seem that his intelligence quotient could equally be a factor for consideration, and we so hold.” I cannot concur in the preceding observation.
A man’s age physically creeps up on him. As I understand it, his intelligence quotient doesn't, but lies there during mortality without aggrandizement. In this I may be wrong, not knowing much about psychiatry, being psychophobic at heart. But I always have thought that workmen’s compensation laws were designed to alleviate familial or other hardship because of unemployment due to physical impairment. I may be wrong, — and the instant main opinion would seem to conclude I am wrong when it says the I. Q. of a person is a factor in determining total permanent disability.
*395If the main opinion is correct, the horn of plenty blows much louder, and Pandora’s Box becomes a box car, not a shoe box. Thousands of employers have responded to the nationally subsidized plea to give those who, because of mental difficulties, are unable to cope with the average worker, — but who may do things of a menial nature satisfactorily. If a low I. Q. is to be added to advanced age as a factor in determining total permanent disability, my guess is that employers will discontinue using a lot of unfortunates who need help, — if the employers are faced with lifetime support of one with a low I. Q. if the latter loses a hand in industry and can do nothing therein because of the loss of the hand plus a low I. Q. Any other conclusion seems to me as •one leading to shriveled help for needy persons and an unrealistic application of the letter, purpose and spirit of industrial compensation legislation.
To me, the theme song of the main opinion with respect to the I. Q. factor is discordant with the compensation song. The physical handicap of one losing a hand may amount to 10%. Now, if you add to that figure 90% because of a low I. Q. to conclude 100% total, permanent disability, — the result is obvious: The labor market for poor unfortunates with low I. Q.’s will tend to dry up, — and employers will take a second look at the so-called I. Q. factor.