Mathis v. ForrestMathis v. Forrest
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is a Workmen’s Compensation case. The trial judge dismissed the petition on the ground that the injuries complained of had not diminished petitioner’s еarning capacity.
On September 3, 1946, petitioner’s hack was injured when he fell off the roof of a building. He was paid temporary total disability until about December 20,1946. At that time he resumed light work for the defendants at $31 рer week and was paid $18 per week compensation until. Marсh 8, 1947, after which time he was paid his regular wages of $65 per week and his compensation was stopped.. Petitioner was paid the totаl sum of $468, and doctors’ bills were paid for him amounting to $531.50.
On September 2, 1947, petitioner filed this suit in the circuit court of Hamilton County, to recover further сompensation of the defendants. The trial judge found that petitionеr had not lost his earning capacity within the meaning of the Workmen’s Comрensation Law, Code, sec. 6851 et seq., but had continued his carpenter work with no reduction in his wages up to within a few days of the time of the filing of this suit. There is material evidence to support this finding; therefore petitiоner is not entitled to recover further compensation.. In such a сase, where there is material evidence to support the finding оf the trial judge, this Court will not disturb the judgment below. Milne v. Sanders, 143 Tenn.
In Standard Surety & Casualty Co. of New York et al. v. Sloan,
“ ‘The general purpose of thе Compensation Acts is to provide compensation for loss of earning power or capacity sustained by workmen through injuries in industry.’ Schnеider Vol. I, at p. 5. As said in Devine’s Case,236 Mass. 588 , at page 592,129 N. E. 414 , at page 415, ‘The general purpose of thе Workmen’s Compensation Act was to substitute in cases to which it is apрlicable, for common law or statutory rights of action and grounds of liability, a system of money payments based upon the loss of wages by way of relief,’ etc. (Italics ours.) And seе 71 Corpus Juris, p. 232, where it is said that, ‘the Compensation Acts are based on a new theory of compensation, as distinguished from previously existing thеories of damages,’ etc., citing numerous cases. One may he physically injured and suffer damages, for which he could recover in an action of tort, but unless the injury to his person affects and diminishes his earning powеr, he can not recover an award under Compensation Acts.
“Subsеction (c) of Code Section 68, as amended by Pub. Acts 1941, Chap. 90, sec. 5, deals with permanent partial disability and carries a schedule fixing the сompensation to be paid for the loss of the various members оf the body. The concluding paragraph of this subsection, as amendеd, reads:
“ ‘In all other cases of permanent partial disability not above enumerated the compensation shall be sixty per centum of the difference between the wage of the workman at the timе of the injury and the wage he is*131 able to earn in bis partially disabled condition subject to a maximum of eighteen dollars per week. Compеnsation shall continue during disability, not, however, beyond three hundred weeks. (Ib.; 1927, ch. 40.)’ We have here a case of permanent partial disability as to which this paragraph applies, this being a case ‘not above,’ that is, in this subsection, ‘enumerated’. The award provided for in such a сase, is ‘sixty per centum of the difference between the wage оf the workman at the time of the injury and the wage he is able to earn in his рartially disabled condition. ’ The measure of the award is prescribеd by the language we have italicized. If there is no ‘difference,’ then thеre can be no award of compensation. ’ ’
The assignments of error are overruled and the judgment of the lower court is affirmed.