Court Opinion

ID: 9550390
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:34:55.370706+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:21:29.223265
License: Public Domain

HERNANDEZ, Judge (dissenting). I respectfully dissent. Section 52-1-25 of our Workmen’s Compensation Act provides: “As used in the Workmen’s Compensation Act, ‘partial disability’ means a condition whereby a workman, by reason of injury arising out of and in the course of his employment, is unable to some percentage-extent to perform the usual tasks in the work he was performing at the time of his injury and is unable to some percentage-extent to perform any work for which he is fitted by age, education, training, general physical and mental capacity and previous work experience.” [Emphasis added.] The trial court made the following findings of fact, among others: 29. Plaintiff has worked continuously as Credit Manager at SIC since May 15, 1977. 30. Plaintiff has wholly performed the work as Credit Manager at SIC which was work he was qualified to do by reason of age, education, training, general physical and mental capacity, and previous work experience at SIC from May 15, 1977, to the date of trial on April 17, 1978. 31.Plaintiff is able to perform the work available to him at SIC as Credit Manager, based upon his age, education, training, general physical and mental capacity, and previous work experience. The trial court made the following conclusion of law, among others: 3. The Plaintiff’s injury has not disabled him from employment for which he is fitted by age, education, training, general physical and mental capacity and previous work experience. Dr. A. E. Luckett testified in part as follows: “Q. Does Mr. Aranda’s condition, as you found him on March 27, 1978, interfere with his capacity to work as a SIC Credit Manager? “A. No. “Q. You are not giving this man a temporary, partial disability from his capacity to work at SIC at this time, are you? “A. No, sir.” This testimony, in my opinion, sustains the trial court’s findings and conclusion cited above. I would affirm the trial court’s judgment.