158 So. 252 | La. Ct. App. | 1935
Plaintiff's claim is based upon the provisions of subsection 1(a) of section 8 of the Workmen's Compensation Law (Act No.
The judgment of the trial court, in allowing 81 weeks, recognized plaintiff's claim for temporary total disability for 51 weeks, the period of plaintiff's disability prior to the amputation of his finger and added 30 weeks, the amount allowed under paragraph 2 of subsection (d) of section 8 for the loss of an index finger, an award which is obviously in excess of the amount allowed for the loss of the finger and in apparent conflict with the language of paragraph 15 of subsection (d) of section 8. which, as we have seen, prohibits an award for the injury to a member beyond that allowed for the loss of such member. The judgment can only be sustained upon the theory that the provisions relied upon by defendant limiting recovery do not apply to those injuries which produce disability to perform work of any reasonable character, a view once entertained by this court. See Wilson v. Union Indemnity Co. et al. (La.App.)
"A reading of the decisions on the subject shows that there has been confusion and conflict in the jurisprudence of this state. The compensation statute was enacted in 1914 (Act No.
"Even after the passage of Act No.
Our opinion in the Wilson Case was not shared by our brothers of the Second circuit, who expressed a contrary view in the case of Calhoun v. Meridian Lumber Co. (La.App.)
In view of the holding in the Calhoun Case, the conclusion is inescapable that the judgment of our brother below was erroneous to the extent that compensation was allowed beyond 30 weeks.
The weekly compensation claimed by plaintiff ($16.77) is conceded to be correct. The amount asked for medical expenses, $57.50, is also conceded.
Consequently, and for the reasons assigned, the judgment appealed from is amended so as to reduce the compensation allowed plaintiff from 81 weeks to 30 weeks, and, as thus amended, it is affirmed.
*254Amended and affirmed.