Court Opinion

ID: 9669949
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:11:31.730121+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:01.326720
License: Public Domain

Williams, J.
(for reversal). My Brother Swain-son has ably interpreted Part II, § 3 as to when compensation is first payable and when the employee becomes liable to compensation for the first week of incapacity. I concur completely in that part of his opinion.
However, I interpret the method of compensation differently. The pertinent statutory language is:
"While the incapacity for work resulting from the injury is total, the employer shall pay, or cause to be paid as hereinafter provided, to the injured employee, a weekly compensation of 66-2/3% of his average weekly wages, but not more than * * * $64.00 * * * if such injured employee has no dependents; * * * .” Part II, §9.
"The weekly loss in wages referred to in this act shall consist of such percentage of the average weekly earn*698ings of the injured employee computed according to the provisions of this section as shall fairly represent the proportionate extent of the impairment of his earning capacity in the employment in which he was working at the time of the injury, the same to be fixed as of the time of the injury, but to be determined in view of the nature and extent of the injury. The compensation payable, when added to his wage earning capacity after the injury in the same or another employment, shall not exceed his average weekly earnings at the time of such injury.” Part II, § 11(1).
Whatever difficulty there is in interpretation is in the Part II, § 11(1) language. However, it seems fairly straightforward.
"The weekly loss in wages” it says "shall consist of such percentage of the average weekly earnings * * * as shall fairly represent the proportionate extent of the impairment of his earning capacity * * * .” obviously, if the employee’s "earning capacity” was 100% impaired for 100% of the week, "the proportionate extent of the impairment of his earning capacity” would be 100% and "[t]he weekly loss in wages * * * [would] consist of [100%] of the average weekly earnings”.
In this case the employee’s "earning capacity” was 100% impaired for 40% of the week (assuming she worked a 5 day week). "[T]he proportionate extent of the impairment of [her] earning capacity” was 40% and "[t]he weekly loss in wages * * * [would] consist of [40%] of the average weekly earnings.”
Having determined this, the next step is to apply the compensation formula of Part II, § 9, which is compensation at 66-2/3% of average weekly wages but not more than $64 if there are no dependents. The employee’s average weekly wage is $111.36. 40% of that is $44.54, and 66-2/3% of that is $29.70. The wages actually earned *699during the week were $73.22. The total of $29.70 and $73.22, or $102.92, do not exceed the limitation clause "shall not exceed his average weekly earnings” (Part II, § 11[1]) of $111.36. Therefore, the claimant is entitled to $29.70.
The Court of Appeals is reversed and the case is remanded to the Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board for entry of an order not inconsistent with this decision.