Court Opinion

ID: 9720233
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 08:21:24.586895+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:14.467724
License: Public Domain

Kelly, Justice
(dissenting).
I join in the dissent of Mr. Justice Rogosheske, although I cannot agree that the decision of the majority can be justified by the interpretation of paragraph 6 of the September 1, 1967, stipulation which he suggests. The phrases “in lieu of” and “in modification of” are inconsistent as used in that agreement. An interpretation that the original award was vacated and an award of permanent total disability was substituted therefor totally disregards the phrase “in modification of.”
The commission itself in considering the stipulation interpreted it to mean that the original award for temporary total disability was not vacated, but was modified. Thus, in its order of October 31, 1967, the commission in effect states that in addition to 350 weeks of temporary total disability and 17% weeks of permanent total disability, the employer’s insurer is to make payments for permanent total disability.
I would hold that the decisions of the commission made in 1965 and 1967 are res judicata on the issues here presented. For the foregoing reasons and the reasons set forth in Mr. Justice Rogosheske’s dissent, as modified herein, I would reverse.