Lion Oil Co. v. Reeves, 4-9756
| Decision Date | 21 April 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. 4-9756,4-9756 |
| Citation | 254 S.W.2d 450,221 Ark. 5 |
| Parties | LION OIL CO. v. REEVES. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Davis & Allen, El Dorado, for appellant.
Shackleford & Shackleford, El Dorado, S. Hubert Mayes, Little Rock, for appellee.
R. L. Reeves, who for many years had been a Lion Oil Company employe, was injured February 11, 1949. His claim for permanent partial impairment of the left hand to the extent of 75% was admittedly compensable under the Workmen's Compensation Law. The appeal does not involve Reeves' right to payment during the healing period terminating January 9, 1950, while he was unemployed.
It is agreed that Reeves' weekly wage when he became incapacitated, computed under the formula supplied by the compensation law, was $56.80; hence the disabled worker was entitled to the maximum allowable of $25 per week, Ark.Stats. § 81-1310(a).
But Lion Oil Company's policy was to pay its employes during temporary disability of the kind involved, and the amount so paid is measured by the wage or salary existing when the misfortune occurs, plus any increase applicable to the group of employes to which the particular worker belongs.
A class increase granted during Reeves' period of disability raised his weekly income from $56.80 to $70.13. The healing period continued for 47 2/7 weeks. During that time Reeves was paid an average of $60.22 per week, $35.22 of which was in the nature of a courtesy grant: that is, it exceeded the compensation requirement of $25 by the sum mentioned. This excess payment of $35.22, multiplied by the weeks and the fraction taken for healing, amounted to $1,665.06.
The Commission found that under § 13(c) of Initiated Act No. 4 of 1948, Ark.Stats. § 81-1313, the employe should be paid for a specific injury, and that such payments must continue after healing until a maximum of 150 weeks had been accounted for. However, since the degree of impairment was but 75%, the top allowable of $25 per week would be three-fourths of 150 weeks (112 1/2) multiplied by the monetary factor, or $2,812.50. These figures would not be disputed if the Commission's construction is correct. The oil company does not contend that additional payments may not become due at a later date. On the contrary it takes the position that, because Reeves' income during the healing period and at all times since has been greater than any weekly sum legally allowable by the Commission, nothing more in the nature of compensation can be awarded until the claimant's wages fall below $25 per week. Sallee Brothers v. Thompson, 208 Ark. 727, 187 S.W.2d 956; Conatser v. D. W. Hoskins Truck Service, 210 Ark. 141, 194 S.W.2d 680.
In addition to its finding that the specific injury was compensable per se, the Commission concluded that when the oil company made the supplementary weekly payments of $35.22 a gratuity was intended; but, regardless of what the motivation was, this total of $1,665.06 could not be allowed as partial offset against the award of $2,812.50.
On appeal to circuit court the Commission's finding that the injury was compensable specifically was upheld, but its refusal to permit the oil company to take credit for the $35.22 paid weekly as supplement during the healing period was reversed.
In the Sallee Bros.-Thompson case the Commission ruled that a claimant was entitled to compensation upon a showing that he had sustained a permanent partial disability to his body as a whole, even though the worker may be employed at a higher wage than was paid before the injury, 'if he can show that as a result of the injury he is forced to compete on the open labor market as a handicapped worker'. [208 Ark. 727, 187 S.W.2d 959.] This Court reversed, but in doing so we were construing the Act of 1939.
Section 81-1313(c)(23), considered in the Sallee appeal, referred to 'all other cases'--being those cases not enumerated in the preceding subsections. This non-specified class of disability was compensable at 65% of the difference between the worker's average weekly wage 'and his wage earning capacity thereafter in the same employment or otherwise, payable during the continuance of such partial disability', etc.
In the Initiated Act 'other cases' are treated in § 81-1313(d) and the language is: 'A permanent partial disability not scheduled in subsection (c) hereof shall be apportioned to the body as a whole, which shall have a value of 450 weeks, and there shall be paid compensation to the injured employee for the proportionate loss of use of the body as a whole resulting from the injury.' The words, 'and his wage earning capacity thereafter in the same employment or otherwise' have not been brought forward in the new measure.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. Siegler, 5-3761
...except advance payment of compensation, the Company failed to establish its case. The Company relies on our case of Lion Oil Co. v. Reeves, 221 Ark. 5, 254 S.W.2d 450; and also relies on cases decided in other jurisdictions involving this or similar benefit plans; some of such cases being: ......
-
Gould's Case
...double recovery by employee); Strohmeyer v. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co., 396 S.W.2d 1, 6-8 (St.L.Mo.Ct.App.). See also Lion Oil Co. v. Reeves, 221 Ark. 5, 254 S.W.2d 450, limited by Looney v. Sears Roebuck, 236 Ark. 868, 871-872, 371 S.W.2d 6; Watson v. Jones, 233 Ark. 203, 204, 343 S.W.2d 4......
-
Varnell v. Union Carbide, CA
...here, by the way of contrast, was fully funded by Union Carbide. We find that Varnell's case is on all fours with Lion Oil Company v. Reeves, 221 Ark. 5, 254 S.W.2d 450 (1952), where the credit was allowed for payments intended to represent a percentage of wages, which is the situation here......
-
Arkansas Power & Light Co. v. Scroggins
...where wages have been paid by the employer subsequent to the occurrence of the disability to the claimant is that of Lion Oil Co. v. Reeves, 221 Ark. 5, 254 S.W.2d 450. As the Commission calculated and summarized the compensable benefits, had an award been made, considering the wages paid c......