La Rue v. Ashton Co., 1
| Decision Date | 18 October 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,CA-IC,1 |
| Citation | 2 Ariz.App. 101,406 P.2d 451 |
| Parties | John LA RUE, Petitioner, v. The ASHTON COMPANY, Inc., Respondent, the Industrial Commission of Arizona, Respondent Insurance Carrier. * 35. |
| Court | Arizona Court of Appeals |
Hirsch, Van Slyke, Richter & Ollason, by Lawrence Ollason, Jack T. Arnold, Tucson, Howard A. Kashman, Tucson, for petitioner.
Robert K. Park, Chief Counsel of Industrial Commission of Arizona, Robert A. Slonacker, Glen D. Webster, Phoenix, for respondent.
The answer to the problem presented to the Court in this matter is found in the proper definition of the leg of the human being in relation to industrial compensation. Unfortunately, the anatomical definition and the legal definition are not identical.
Mr. La Rue Sustained a compensable industrial injury when he broke his left femur a short distance below the ball which fits into the hip socket. This was the only injury. There was no injury to the socket or to the pelvis. He was granted compensation for 'a scheduled injury' and in the matter now before us he urges that he should have been granted compensation for 'an unscheduled injury'. Scheduled injuries are those which are set forth in Subsection B of § 23-1044, A.R.S. This Subsection contains an arithmetic formula for the computation of the award for 'permanent disability' resulting from injury to the members of the body which are listed in this subsection without regard to the effect that the injury or loss may have upon the earning capacity of the individual workman. In paragraph 15 thereof, we find the formula 'For the loss of a leg * * *' and in paragraph 21 thereof, we find the formula 'For the partial loss of use of a * * * leg * * *.' In awarding compensation in this matter the Commission applied Subsection B.
Subsection C of § 23-1044 relates to injuries not enumerated in Subsection B, a different method of computation of compensation is used based upon '* * * the difference between his average monthly wages before the accident and the amount which represents his reduced monthly earning capacity resulting from the disability * * *.' There are instances where if a given injury in relation to a particular person could be considered to be an unscheduled injury, the amount of compensation could be higher and the period of compensation could be longer. In the case of Ujevich v. Inspiration Consolidated Copper Company, 44 Ariz. 16, 33 P.2d 599 (1934), the Supreme Court had under consideration the matter of the injury to the left femur and the contention...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Potomac Elec. Power Co. v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, U.S. Dept. of Labor
...(cited in 2 A. Larson, Supra, § 58.20) (injury to leg which extends to back compensable under "other cases") With La Rue v. Ashton Co., 2 Ariz.App. 101, 406 P.2d 451 (1965) (injury confined to leg compensable only under schedule) And Thomas Concrete Products v. Robertson, 485 P.2d 1054 (Okl......
-
Brasher v. Gibson
... ... Waller, husband and wife, Appellants, ... Keaton GIBSON, Appellee. * ... 1 CA-CIV 76 ... Court of Appeals of Arizona ... Oct. 18, 1965 ... [2 ... In Turner v. James Canal Co., 155 Cal. 82, 99 P. 520, 22 L.R.A.N.S., 401 (1909), the California Supreme Court considered a ... ...
-
Roeder v. Industrial Commission
...stated that any resulting impairment to the hip itself should be compensated as unscheduled. Subsequently, in La Rue v. Ashton Company, 2 Ariz.App. 101, 406 P.2d 451 (1965), the Court of Appeals, in considering claimant's contention that his injury was in the 'hip area' or 'pelvic girdle' a......
-
Smith v. Robert N. Pyles, Inc., 552
...joint, and that portion below the ankle joint.' (footnotes omitted). The Court of Appeals of Arizona in La Rue v. Ashton Company, 2 Ariz.App. 101, 102, 406 P.2d 451, 452 (1965), in a case strikingly similar factually, quoted from the case of Ujevich v. Inspiration Consol. Copper Co., 44 Ari......