Court Opinion

ID: 9832026
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:33:26.805134+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:41.262794
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
In our original opinion, we approved the following findings by the Industrial Accident Board:
“The said J. M. Cahal suffered permanent partial incapacity in the percentage of 30 per cent, as related to the loss of the use of the hand.”
And—
“The said J. M. Cahal suffered total incapacity for work from June 3, 1920, to September 3, 1920, a period of 12 weeks.”
On these findings, as shown by our opinion, the Board allowed compensation for 12 weeks’ total disability, and 138 weeks’ partial disability. We approved this holding, only reforming the amount of the award.
Appellant now insists that we have erred in our Construction of sections 10,11, and 12, of part 1 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, being articles 5246 — 18 to 5246 — 21, inclusive, Complete Texas Statutes 1920, which provides:
“For the injuries enumerated in the following schedule the employee shall receive in lieu of all other compensation,” etc. “ * * * For the loss of a hand 60 per cent, of the average weekly wages during 150 weeks. * * * In all cases of permanent, partial, incapacity, it shall he considered that the permanent loss of the use of the member be equivalent to and draw the same compensation as the loss of that member; but the compensation in and by said schedule provided shall be in lieu of all other compensation in such cases.”
The article cited names a long list of injuries designating them as “specific.” To be “specific” within the meaning of the cited article, the injury must relate to the injured member alone, and incapacity must relate alone to the loss of the use of the injured member. If because of the injury to the specific member the entire body is made to ■suffer, thereby incapacitating the laborer from the performance of his usual and customary duties, as was the case of this appel-lee, then the injury is not “specific” within the meaning of the cited article, and the provision of article 5246 — 21, providing, “The compensation in and by said schedule provided shall be in lieu of all other compensation in such eases,” has no application, but in that ease compensation should be granted under article 5246 — 18 (section 10, part .1,, Workmen’s Compensation Act), which provides:
“While the incapacity for work resulting from injury is total, the association shall pay the injured employee a weekly compensation equal to sixty per cent, of his average weekly wages, but not more than $15.00 nor less than $5.00, and in no ease shall the period covered by such compensation be greater than four hundred and one (401) weeks from the date of the injury.”
Under our construction of these articles, it follows that appellee was correctly given compensation for 12 weeks on the finding of total incapacity.
The motion for rehearing is in all things overruled.