Court Opinion

ID: 9536084
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 06:54:33.712872+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:33:26.907994
License: Public Domain

ON REHEARING
*543Raymond J. Conboy, Portland, argued the cause for respondent-cross-appellant on rehearing. With him on the petition for rehearing were Richard Noble, and Pozzi, Wilson & Atchison, Portland.
Walter H. Sweek, Portland, argued the cause for appellant-cross-respondent on rehearing.
LANGTRY, J.
This case was reargued after a petition for rehearing was granted. The rehearing was granted principally because our decision did not consider the rule in Ryf v. Hoffman Construction Co., 254 Or 624, 459 P2d 991 (1969) , which held .that loss of earnings caused by the accident are a consideration in determining compensation.
On this review, we do not disturb our holding in the original opinion concerning the construction of procedure and scope of review statutes in workmen’s compensation appeals to circuit court and Court of Appeals.
Ryf was decided by the Oregon Supreme Court on October 22,1969, and petition for rehearing was denied January 13, 1970. The Workmen’s Compensation Board’s Administrative Order, WBC No. 1 — 1970, applying Ryf, was promulgated .January 23, 1970. Our original decision in the case at bar, came down on January 15, 1970. We should have viewed this case in *544the light of Ryf. In Ryf, as indicated, the court used, in addition to medical evidence, other evidence showing loss of earnings as criteria for increasing an unscheduled disability award. In Trent v. Compensation Dept., 2 Or App 76, 466 P2d 622 (1970), we applied the loss-of-earnings rule to a situation where the disability was to an extremity, still recognizing, however, the restrictions imposed by Jones v. Compensation Department, 250 Or 177, 441 P2d 242 (1968), where it was held that the total award, for disability to an extremity may not exceed the statutory schedule of payment for loss of the extremity.
In the case at bar there was substantial evidence from several witnesses, including the claimant, that his inability to continue his former occupation as a heavy duty truck driver derives from loss of function of his left arm, and from discomfort in his back and loss of lifting ability because of the back injury. It is difficult to separate them as causes of what the evidence showed was a decided loss of earnings. But the loss of actual use of the arm did not prevent him from operating a vehicle. It was disability stemming from the accident which precipitated his apparently permanent, almost, but not complete, loss of earning ability. In consideration of this, for the injury to his back, we find defendant has permanent partial disability equal to 100 per cent loss of an arm by separation for unscheduled disability. The balance of the award approved in our original opinion shall remain as it was.
Former opinion modified.