Court Opinion

ID: 9559740
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 17:34:52.834313+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:11:36.380855
License: Public Domain

DE CONCINI, Justice
(dissenting).
I disagree with the majority opinion.
Of all the cases cited by the majority opinion, the Ossic v. Verde Central Mines, 46 Ariz. 176, 49 P.2d 396, 401, is the latest and most nearly in point. I cannot agree that the Ossie case is authority for the commission to disregard the two partial scheduled losses and make its award solely under the “odd lot” cases as an unscheduled loss. I think the Ossie case is authority for the proposition that when an injured workman receives a scheduled injury whether its one, or more, and whether its total or partial, he is entitled as a minimum to an award that will compensate him for those scheduled losses in accordance with subsection (b) of 56-957, A.C.A. 1939; and in addition thereto he is further entitled to a loss of earnings award if his condition warrants it. The loss of earnings award to begin after the period provided for his monthly installments for scheduled injuries has expired.
This court in the Ossie case quoted the following from Ujevich v. Inspiration Consol. Copper Co., 42 Ariz. 276, 25 P.2d 273: “ 'The Legislature selected certain kinds of injuries or losses that employees suffer and fixed a definite sum or a rule 'for ascertaining that sum and said, in effect, such sum together with the temporary total disability compensation shall be in full satisfaction of the employee’s loss. It provided compensation for such loss whether any permanent disability to earn wages followed or not. It assumed that every loss enumerated would cause some permanent loss of earning power, and arbitrarily fixed the compensation therefor. While the application of this rule may in some instances compensate the employee more than he has been disabled, in others he doubtless will receive less than his ability has been depreciated by reason of the accident’.”
After analyzing 56-957 (sec. 1438 of the 1928 code) this court further held: “ * *. These facts are evidence that the Legis*62iature has realized that in compensation cases two plus two does not necessarily equal four, but in some cases may equal six or more. We are of the opinion that this rule, which the Legislature has specifically adopted for certain classes of multiple injuries, is in logic and in justice the one which should be applied to all cases of such injuries, where another rule is not expressly set forth in the statute.
5|S ij< jfc 1)
If the Interpretation put on the Ossie case by the majority opinion is the law, then the commission could in a case where there is no loss of earnings make an award under the “odd lot” case rule for a negligible amount or nothing at all, and completely disregard the statute which gives the injured workman a specific sum when he suffers multiple partial scheduled injuries as he has in this case.
The award should be set aside.