Utica-Mohawk Mills v. Orr
Decision Date | 26 May 1955 |
Docket Number | UTICA-MOHAWK,No. 17007,17007 |
Citation | 87 S.E.2d 589,227 S.C. 226 |
Parties | MILLS and Utica Mutual Insurance Company, Appellants, v. Curtis ORR, Respondent. |
Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Haynsworth, Perry, Bryant, Marion & Johnstone, Greenville, for appellants.
Charles & Charles, Greenwood, for respondent.
This action (under the Declaratory Judgment Act, Sec. 10-2001 et seq., Code of 1952) is for the construction of, and judgment upon, an unappealed award of workmen's compensation to respondent by the Industrial Commission which was made on Sept. 28, 1953, when respondent was not employed, as follows:
'It is ordered that the defendants shall pay to the claimant, Curtis Orr, compensation equal to sixty (60%) per cent of the difference between the average weekly wage he earned before the injury and the average weekly wage which he is physically able to earn after the injury for thirty (30%) per cent permanent disability to the body as a whole, not to exceed the compensable rate of Twenty-five and no/100 ($25.00) Dollars per week.'
Respondent suffered a compensable back injury on April 14, 1951. He underwent an operation, after which he returned to work on December 3, 1951, having meanwhile received weekly compensation for temporary total disability. Upon return to work he was paid slightly higher wages than before his injury until June 7, 1952, when he was put on lighter work and his wages were decreased. He continued at this new job until February 5, 1953, since which he has not worked and has therefore earned no wages.
During the period June 7, 1952-Feb. 5, 1953, respondent was paid weekly compensation at the rate of 60% of the difference (decrease) in his weekly wages. However, after respondent quit work on Feb. 5, 1953, appellants paid him $25 per week until Feb. 19, 1954 as for total disability, to which he was not entitled under the award. (The case arose before the amendment of 1953, 48 Stat. 103, which increased the maximum weekly compensation from $25 to $35).
The trial court reached the following conclusion which is quoted from the judgment under appeal, with our insertions in parentheses:
'The record reveals that at the time of the injury, the Defendant (claimant) was earning Fifty-six and 05/100 ($56.05) Dollars per week; a loss of thirty (30%) per cent earning power (disability) would reduce these wages by $16.815 per week, but the Act (Code Sec. 72-152) allows recovery of only sixty (60%) per cent of this loss or $10.089 per week which fixes Defendant's (claimant's) compensable rate.
We think that the principle applied in the decision is correct because it follows the terms of the act as will be seen, but the court fell into error in failing to allow appellants credit for the overpayment of compensation as for total disability instead of partial, which was the award. This refers to the period of Feb. 5, 1953-Feb. 19, 1954. The court simply applied the percentage of partial disability to respondent's wages at the time of the accident and took 60% of it to arrive at the weekly compensation when respondent was not working.
The principal question involved in the appeal is the interpretation of the provision of the Workmen's Compensation Act for compensation for partial disability, which is Section 72-152 of the Code of 1952, as follows (before the aforementioned inapplicable amendment of 1953):
Section 72-153 provides certain awards for specific injuries to various members of the body, which is of no present application.
The employer and insurer contend that the percentage of partial...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bowen v. Chiquola Mfg. Co.
...and June 5, 1959 to June 26, 1959, and June 26, 1959 to July 27, 1959.' The circuit judge, reversing, held that under Utica-Mohawk Mills v. Orr, 227 S.C. 226, 87 S.E.2d 589, the Commission was required to base its award on the percentage of disability (i. e. 25%) as disclosed by the uncontr......
-
G. E. Moore Co. v. Walker
...of compensation. Counsel for the Industrial Commission say that the new formula was based on our decision in Utica-Mohawk Mills v. Orr, 227 S.C. 226, 87 S.E.2d 589, 591. We think the Commission has misconstrued this decision. We were called upon in that case to determine the proper method o......
-
James v. Anne's Inc., 26762.
...life expectancy in the absence of consent of the parties."(1) Utica-Mohawk Mills v. Orr James initially cited Utica-Mohawk Mills v. Orr, 227 S.C. 226, 87 S.E.2d 589 (1955), in addition to the general authority of the Commission under statutory law, for support of the Commission's use of pro......
-
James v. Anne's Inc.
...laws for allocation of a lump sum award over the claimant's life expectancy in the absence of consent of the parties." (1) Utica-Mohawk Mills v. Orr James initially cited Utica-Mohawk Mills v. Orr, 227 S.C. 226, 87 S.E.2d 589 (1955), in addition to the general authority of the Commission un......