Court Opinion

ID: 9868463
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-26 18:36:12.740372+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:50.530356
License: Public Domain

On Petition to Kkheae.
We are asked most earnestly to review our former decision only with respect to the amount of compensation *380awarded the petitioner, a question not dealt with in the opinion.
The trial court awarded petitioner $15 per week for 275 weeks, or $4,125, less a credit of $180, which had been paid. Construing together subsections (c), (d) and (e) of section 28 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act of 1919, as amended by the Act of 1923, the trial court found that petitioner, at the time of his injury, was earning $30 per week; that if he had totally and permanently lost the sight of both eyes under said subsections (d) and (e) he would be entitled to recover one-half of what he was earning, or $15 per week for 550 weeks, and that since his vision was only impaired fifty per cent he would be entitled to recover $15' per week for 275 weeks under a provision in subsection (c), relating to injury to a member resulting in less than total loss of use of such member, which will be incorporated in this opinion later.
The trial court found that the disability of petitioner was permanent partial, and that finding is not questioned.
A careful consideration of the Act convinces us that the legislature in subsection (c) undertook to provide for and cover every case of permanent partial disability.
So much of said subsection as is here involved is as follows :
“For the permanent partial disability, the compensation shall be based upon the extent of such disability. In cases included by (in) the following schedule, the compensation shall be that named in the schedule, to-wit: ”
The schedule is too long to be incorporated into this opinion, but includes many cases of total loss of some member or members.
*381Then follows the provision invoked by petitioner, which is in this language:
“In cases of permanent partial disability due to injury to a member resulting in less than total loss of use of such member not otherwise compensated in this schedule, compensation shall be paid at the prescribed rate during that part of the time specified in the schedule for the total loss or total loss of use of the respective member, which the extent of injury to the member bears to its total loss.”
The preceding schedule covers total loss of certain members, while the stipulation relied upon covers “injury to a member resulting in less than total loss of use of such member not otherwise compensated in this schedule.”
Subsection (c) concludes with this language:
“In all other cases of permanent partial disability not above enumerated, the compensation shall be fifty per centum of the difference between the wage of the workman at the time of the injury and the wage he is able to earn in his partially disabled condition, subject to a maximum of eleven ($11) dollars per week. Compensation shall continue during disability, not, however, beyond three hundred (300) weeks.”
The maximum compensation was raised from eleven to fifteen dollars by the Act of 1923.
We wish to emphasize the fact that the proviso just quoted covers “all other cases of permanent partial disability not above enumerated.” Obviously, therefore, the petitioner’s compensation must be computed by this rule.
On the other hand, subsection (c) applies in cases of permanent total disability, and is in this language:
“The total and permanent loss of the sight of both eyes, or the loss of both arms at the shoulder, or com-*382píete and permanent paralysis, or total and permanent loss of mental faculties, or any other injury -which totally incapacitates the employee from working at an occupation which brings him an income, shall constitute total disability. ’ ’
In other words, one deals with permanent partial and the other with permanent total disability, and they are in no way related or connected.
This brings us to the query as to the difference between the wage of petitioner at the time of the injury and the wage he is able to earn in his partially disabled condition?
The trial court made no finding, in dollars and cents, as to this matter, but he did find ‘ ‘ that petitioner’s earning capacity is reduced fifty per cent,” which is equivalent to finding that he can now earn fifteen dollars per week, and we find some evidence to support this finding.
Upon this basis petitioner would be entitled to a decree for $7.50' per week for 285 weeks (300 weeks, less 15 weeks for which payment has been made), or $2137.50. The trial court entered a decree in favor of petitioner for $4125, less $180, or $3045.
The petition to rehear is granted.
Unless petitioner will remit $1807.50 of his decree, reducing it to $2137.50, the decree of the trial court will be reversed and the case remanded for a new trial.
Petitioner will pay one-third and defendants two-thirds of the entire costs of the case.