Court Opinion

ID: 9549528
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:20:15.921875+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:20:27.389560
License: Public Domain

DIMOND, Justice
(dissenting).
I dissent. Section 190 of the Alaska Workmen’s Compensation Act1 provides that for a partial permanent disability other than a scheduled loss of a member, compensation shall amount to 65 percent of the difference between the injured employee’s average weekly wages and his wage-earning capacity after the injury. Section 155 (l) 2 provides that such permanent partial disability compensation, together with compensation for a temporary total or temporary partial disability sustained in addition to the permanent partial disability, may not exceed in the aggregate the sum of $17,000. These provisions of the Act are unambiguous. They clearly express the legislative intent. As such, they should be administered as they read, and not construed to mean something entirely different merely because it is believed that the result of such construction may lead to a more desirable result.3
The majority mentions appellees’ contention that if the relevant provisions of the Act were read literally, absurd results would be obtained. Reference is made to appellees’ argument that it could not have been the legislative intent that one suffering a 25 percent loss of earning capacity by reason of a non-scheduled injury should receive the maximum allowable under the Act ($17,000), whereas one suffering a more serious and disabling scheduled injury should receive considerably less. The majority then cites as an example the loss of an arm which, under section 190(1) of the Act, is compensable by 280 weeks of compensation, not to exceed $14,500.4
I fail to see any absurdity in the results if the Act is read literally in this case. Assume that appellant’s injury consisted of *20the loss of an arm. For such a scheduled loss, appellant would be entitled to receive a maximum of $14,500 permanent partial disability compensation. But this would be in addition to compensation paid for temporary total or temporary partial disability. In this case appellant received compensation for temporary total disability from June 30 through October 15, 1964, a total of approximately 15.3 weeks. Assuming that appellant’s average wages at the time of injury were $400 a week, a figure used by appellees for illustrative purposes in their brief 5, appellant would have received, under section 185 of the Act6, temporary total disability compensation equal to 65 percent of $400 for 15.3 weeks, or a total of $3,978. This amount, added to the $14,500 maximum amount that could be recovered as permanent partial disability compensation for the loss of an arm, would mean that appellant’s total compensation from all sources would have been $18,478.
On the other hand, one compensated under section 190(20) of the Act, as appellant was, could receive maximum compensation of $17,000 under section 155(Z). This amount includes compensation that may have been paid for temporary total disability and is not, as in the case of a scheduled loss, in addition to such compensation. Thus, it is not necessarily true, as appellee argues, that one suffering a' scheduled loss such as an arm would receive considerably less than one suffering a nonscheduled permanent partial disability, as in appellant’s case.
Furthermore, the injured employee compensated under section 190(20) is subject to having his degree of impairment reconsidered by the Board either on its own motion or upon application of a party in interest. It is conceivable that a man who suffers a permanent partial disability, which is not a scheduled loss, could be removed from the compensation roll after a time if the Board found that his wage-earning capacity was no longer impaired by the injury. Such a situation, however, does not apply to a scheduled loss. In the latter case, even though the injured employee may, with one arm, eventually suffer no impairment of wage-earning capacity, this would be of no consequence; his compensation for permanent partial disability would not be reduced as in the case of a non-scheduled disability.
I suppose that one might conceive of a hypothetical situation where a person suffers a non-scheduled permanent partial disability and receives overall more compensation than one who has suffered a scheduled loss of a member and whose degree of impairment, so far as working capacity is concerned, is greater than the former. But this does not mean that we have the right to take an unambiguous statute and construe it to avoid what might be considered to be an unfair result. In my opinion this is a situation for legislative consideration and not one for judicial legislation under the guise of judicial construction.
I would reverse the judgment below and remand the case to the Alaska Workmen’s Compensation Board for the awarding of compensation in accordance with the express terms of the statute under consideration.

. See note 1 of the majority opinion.

. Id.

. Alaska Mines & Minerals, Inc. v. Alaska Indus. Bd., 354 P.2d 376, 379 (Alaska 1960).

. Note 3 of the majority opinion.

. The record does not show what appellant’s average weekly wages were at the time of the injury. In their brief on appeal, the appellees refer to the fact that appellant’s argument at the Workmen’s Compensation Board hearing was that his average weekly wages exceeded $400.

. AS 23.30.185 provides:
Compensation for temporary total disability. In case of disability total in character but temporary in quality, 65 per cent of the average weekly wages shall be paid to the employee during the continuance of the disability.