87 S.W.2d 87 | Ky. Ct. App. | 1935
Affirming.
This is an appeal from a judgment affirming an award made by the Workmen's Compensation Board. *231
He was attacked while on watch by three men, who robbed him and shot him through his right elbow, as a result of which, after a long hospital experience, he now has a right arm that is stiff and without motion below the elbow, so the attending surgeon testifies, and Turner testifies:
"I am able to do what I can do with one hand mostly, and I am not able to do as much work or any work as I was before."
No evidence was offered by the employer. All agree Turner was then earning $6 per week.
Further on, in section 4899, it is provided:
"In all other cases of permanent partial disability, including any disfigurement which will impair the future usefulness or occupational opportunities of the injured employee, compensation shall be determined according to the percentage of disability, taking into account, among other things, any previous *232 disability, the nature of the physical injury or disfigurement, the occupation of the injured employee and age at the time of injury; the compensation paid therefor shall be sixty-five per cent [65%] of the average weekly earnings of the employee * * * multiplied by the percentage of disability caused by the injury, for such period as the board may determine, not exceeding 335 weeks."
Exactly the question raised by this employer was raised by an employer in Northwestern Fuel Co. v. Industrial Commission,
The last provision of section 4899, copied above, like similar provisions in statutes in other jurisdictions, is usually referred to as the "other cases clause." This clause applies in those eases where the nature of the disability is such that it could not be compensated for under the previous specific schedules of the statute. 71 C. J. p. 834, sec. 548.
Some of the cases in which we have so applied this clause are: Kentucky Distilleries W. Co. v. James,
When we view this award and the judgment before us in the light of those decisions and in the light of the province of the board to pass on the facts, we find no prejudicial error in it; therefore the judgment is affirmed.