Komosa v. Monsanto Chemical Co.
| Decision Date | 21 February 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 29413,29413 |
| Citation | 287 S.W.2d 374 |
| Parties | John J. KOMOSA, Employee, Appellant, v. MONSANTO CHEMICAL COMPANY, Employer, and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Insurer, Respondents. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Paul H. Koenig, Thomas L. Sullivan, St. Louis, for appellant.
James E. Garstang, Jr., C. Lawrence Mueller, St. Louis, for respondents.
This is a proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act, Chapter 287 RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S. The employee filed a claim for compensation as the result of an injury received July 17, 1950, while employed by the chemical company. A hearing was held before a referee of the Industrial Commission, who, among other things, made the following findings: . Other jurisdictional and factual findings are not called in question and need not be recited.
All italics in this opinion are supplied.
Employee filed application for review before the commission, which affirmed the findings and award of the referee. An appeal was perfected to the circuit court and the award of the commission was affirmed. Employee perfected his appeal to this court. The amount involved is less than $7,500, and this court has jurisdiction. Section 3, Article V, Constitution, V.A.M.S.
The employee (appellant) presents but one alleged error in the award, to the effect that the commission erred in making any deduction from the compensation due him as the result of the injury to his back, because of the prior injury to his knee. The limited question presented makes it unnecessary to review in detail the testimony other than to say that there was substantial evidence to support the findings that the employee sustained an accidental injury to his back on July 17, 1950, resulting in permanent partial disability of his body as a whole; that previously the employee had suffered an accidental injury resulting in permanent partial disability of his left leg at the knee, for which he was allowed compensation; and that the disability of his knee was 30 per cent at the time of the second injury. There is no question raised concerning the percentages of disability or of the number of weeks involved as found by the commission and we need not discuss the basis of such findings.
The question for decision is whether the commission made a proper deduction for the prior injury. This requires a construction of Section 287.220, the material part of which reads: .
There is no contention that the employee suffered a 'total and permanent disability', and we are not concerned with that feature of the statute. The injury to the knee and the injury to the back each caused a permanent partial disability, and we must consider the provisions of the section relating to such a state of facts.
As noted supra, the commission found that the disability of the knee was 30 per cent at the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Garrison v. Campbell '66' Exp., Inc., 7584
...completely prior to such last injury. Burgstrand v. Crowe Coal Co., 333 Mo. 43, 62 S.W.2d 406, 408-409(5-7); Komosa v. Monsanto Chemical Company, Mo.App., 287 S.W.2d 374, 377(5); Fuytinck v. Burton W. Duenke Building Company, Mo.App., 280 S.W.2d 449, 455-456. So whether, at the time of the ......
-
Beeler v. Board of Adjustment of City of Joplin, 7512
...121, 260 S.W.2d 573, 580(3).3 St. Louis Ct. of App. --Thrasher v. Allen Estate, Mo.App., 291 S.W.2d 630, 632(2); Komosa v. Monsanto Chemical Co., Mo.App., 287 S.W.2d 374, 377(6); State ex rel. Rueseler Motor Co. v. Klaus, Mo.App., 281 S.W.2d 543, 545(1); Dansker v. Dansker, Mo.App., 279 S.W......
-
Komosa v. Monsanto Chemical Co.
...of Appeals, which rendered its opinion on February 21, 1956, affirming the judgment of the Circuit Court. See Komosa v. Monsanto Chemical Company, Mo.App., 287 S.W.2d 374. On April 5, 1956, the employee's attorney filed with the clerk of the Circuit Court his affidavit setting out the amoun......
-
Buskuehl v. The Doe Run Co.
...several cases, Ludwig, 225 S.W.2d 489; Carenza v. Vulcan-Cincinnati, Inc., 368 S.W.2d 507 (Mo. App. E.D.1963); Komosa v. Monsanto Chemical Co., 287 S.W.2d 374 (Mo.App. E.D.1956), we do not interpret these decisions as mandating a method of calculation.5 Although this court affirmed Commissi......
-
§11.26 Permanent Partial Disability
...“discretion” in Buskuehl, it seems clear that the cases, although they are very old, are not overruled. See Komosa v. Monsanto Chem. Co., 287 S.W.2d 374 (Mo. App. E.D. 1956); Carenza v. Vulcan-Cincinnati, Inc., 368 S.W.2d 507 (Mo. App. E.D. 1963). But if deductions are to be made, the numbe......