Weber v. Am. Silk Spinning Co.

• Decision Date: 03 November 1915
• Docket Number: No. 333.,333.
• Parties: WEBER v. AMERICAN SILK SPINNING CO.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

95 A. 603

WEBER

v. AMERICAN SILK SPINNING CO.

No. 333.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

Nov. 3, 1915.

Appeal from Superior Court, Providence and Bristol Counties; Willard B. Tanner, Judge.

Proceedings under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Charles Weber against the American Silk Spinning Company, to obtain compensation for personal injury. From an award of compensation, the employé appeals. Affirmed, and cause remanded.

Archambault & Archambault, of Providence, for appellant. Boss & Barnefield, of Providence, for respondent.

BAKER, J. This is an appeal by an employé from a decree entered upon his petition for an award of compensation under chapter 831, Public Laws 1911-1912, on account of personal injury sustained in the course of petitioner's employment with the respondent. Nearly all of the allegations of the petition are admitted by the respondent in its answer. The answer raises issues only as to the extent of the injury, as to the petitioner's incapacity for work, and, dependent upon these two issues, as to the amount of the award. The testimony, among other things, shows the following facts: The petitioner had, for 3 1/2 years, been a foreman and overseer in the mill of the respondent; he had had 45 years' experience in silk manufacture, and was skilled in determining by feeling with the hand the quality of silk, both in its raw and in its manufactured state. At the hearing he testified that he was 59 years of age and was unmarried. As foreman he gave orders to those under him, saw that the machines were kept properly adjusted, and gave out and looked after all of the work. If he personally fixed a machine, it was necessary to use both of his hands in doing it. He always had, however, in the mill, subject to his orders, a second hand, competent, under his direction, to fix the machines. His wages were $31.21 a week. He was injured October 15, 1914, and was taken to the Rhode Island Hospital; but, beyond having his hand bandaged, declined treatment therein, and shortly after went to New York for treatment. He returned to Providence early in January, 1915, and in the latter part of February, or early in March following, the respondent offered the petitioner his former position as foreman at the same wages as before; but the petitioner did not accept the offer, and claimed that he was not able to work. It is also in testimony without contradiction that the suggestion was made to the president of the respondent corporation in behalf of the petitioner that the latter would come back as foreman and perform the same work as before, but at less wages. The place was held open for him for several months, but he never returned to it. It also appeared that in this country there are positions in silk fac- tories for only seven foremen. The petitioner testified that he had been unable to work since the accident happened, but did not show that he had tried to do so. There was medical testimony that no reason was apparent from his condition why petitioner, on April 22d, when he was examined, should not do "any kind of ordinary manual labor."

The case was heard June 30, 1915, and a decree was entered the following 7th day of July, awarding the petitioner $382. The reasons of appeal are nine in number.

The finding of fact relative to the extent of the injury, as embodied in paragraph (3) of the decree, is that the petitioner's— "left hand was injured in such manner that the index finger thereof was afterwards amputated between the second joint and the third joint, and that a small piece of bone in the thumb of said hand and pieces of tendons and flesh were lost, and the said thumb has been rendered permanently stiff; that the power of rotating said thumb has not been lost, and the petitioner still has the power of pressing said thumb against the other fingers of his said hand, although said pressure is light and without force; that said thumb has not been amputated or severed, but that a small piece of bone and pieces of tendons and flesh of said thumb have been severed; that the remaining three fingers of said hand were not, and are not, injured or impaired in any way; that the said hand is a useful and serviceable hand, except in the manipulation of small objects."

The petitioner does not, in his reasons of appeal, question the correctness of these findings of fact as to the character and extent of the injury. He does, however, claim in the third and fourth reasons of appeal that the court erred in finding that under section 12 of article 2 of said chapter the petitioner was entitled to compensation for the loss of one finger only, as provided for in paragraph (d) of said section, and also erred in not finding him entitled under paragraph (c) of the same section to compensation for 25 weeks. He urges that these are errors of law. So much of section 12 as is pertinent to the questions thus raised is as follows:

"Section 12. In case of the following specified injuries the amounts named in this section shall be paid in addition to all other compensation provided for in this act. * * * (c) For the loss by severance at or above the second joint of two or more fingers, including thumbs, or toes, one-half the average weekly wages, earnings, or salary of the injured person, but not more than ten dollars nor less than four dollars a week, for a period of twenty-five weeks. (d) For the loss by severance of at least one phalange of a finger, thumb, or toe,...