Court Opinion

ID: 7815331
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-09-07 17:34:05.118141+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:30:35.091512
License: Public Domain

Carleton Harris, Chief Justice, dissenting. I respectfully dissent to the ruling of the majority for the reason that the proof reflects that the deceased received substantially the same earnings after his injury as before the injury, and it is accordingly my opinion that permanent partial disability benefits should be denied.3 The majority concede that this was formerly the law, as previously determined by the cases cited in the majority opinion, but state that Initiated Measure (1948) § 4 changed the law to permit recovery for permanent partial disability even though the injured employee was gainfully employed after the injury, and receiving more than his former wages. The opinion cites sub-section (d) of § 81-1313, but makes no mention of sub-section (h), which provides as follows: “If any injured employee refuses employment suitable to his capacity offered to or procured for him, he shall not be entitled to any compensation during the continuance of such refusal, unless in the opinion of the Commission, such refusal is justifiable.” I can see no reason to deny compensation to an injured employee simply because he refuses employment, if he is entitled to compensation whether employed or not. In other words, it would appear, under the majority opinion, that he can work and earn more wages than before his injury, and still draw compensation for permanent partial disability, but, on the other hand, if, while receiving permanent partial disability payments, he is offered a job which he can handle, and refuses such employment, compensation under the statute, would cease. This, to me, is totally inconsistent, and leads me to the conclusion that the intent, as expressed in the Act, is still to deny compensation where the employee is gainfully employed and making as much or more money than previously. Also, sub-section (m) of § 81-1319, provides as follows: “If the employer has made advance payments of compensation he shall be entitled to be reimbursed out of any unpaid installment or installments of compensation due. If the injured employee receives full wages during disability he shall not be entitled to compensation during such period.” While I agree that this sub-section has primary reference to wages paid by the original employer, I see no particular distinction in receiving the wages from that employer or a second employer. In each instance, the employee has suffered no loss in remuneration. This subsection, read together with sub-section (h) (heretofore referred to), strengthens my conclusion that the people, in passing our Workmen’s Compensation Act, did not contemplate or intend that an employee should draw compensation for permanent partial disability when his earnings, after the accident, were equal to, or greater than, earnings before the accident. In my opinion, the purpose of paying compensation to an injured employee (except for those injuries which might be classed as scheduled claims, such as loss of a hand, foot, etc.), is to prevent financial hardship during that period when he is unable to engage in his normal occupation, or maintain normal earnings. For the reasons herein enumerated, I would reverse the judgment.   It might also be pointed out that a large part of such earnings were received from identically the same occupation that Thomas had previously been engaged in.