Court Opinion

ID: 9704573
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 00:40:20.882057+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:03.470737
License: Public Domain

Otis, Justice
(dissenting).
The compensation judge held that the record does not justify a finding that the employee’s diminished earnings were related to the injury he sustained as an employee of Chromy.
The evidence is undisputed that Dorn was not required to do manual labor either for Chromy or McKie, and that he has not only worked full time for McKie but overtime as well.
Without any evidence that the employee’s earning capacity has been diminished by the injury of March 25,1974, the board’s reversal of the compensation judge is based, in my opinion, on sheer speculation.
Peterson, Justice (dissenting).
I join in the dissent of Mr. Justice Otis.