OPINION OP THE COURT BY
On Mаy 7, 1966, Gerald S. Morita, aged 19, while performing Ms duties as an employee of appellant Twentieth Century Furniture, Inc., injured the thumb and forefinger оf his right hand by cutting them with a power saw. At the time of the injury Morita was earning an average *578 weekly wage of $56.00. The employer, through its insurancе carrier, began payment of a weekly benefit of $37.33, computed as 66 2/3% of the injured employee’s average weekly wagе at the time of the injury. Over one year later, on July 28, 1967, at a hearing held before C. W. Chong, Hearings Officer of the Department of Labor and Industrial Relations, Workmen’s Compensation Division, a determination was made that Morita suffered temporary total disability for a period of 11 1/7 weeks immediately subsequent to the accident and a permanent partial disability to the right hand. In addition to a disfigurement award, the hearings officer determined that the injured was entitled under § 97-30 (b), R.L.H. 1955, as amended, presently HRS § 386-31 (b), to receive a weekly benefit equal to 66 2/3% of his average weekly wages for the 11 1/7 weeks of temporary total disability; for the permanent partial disability, the hearings offiсer determined that the injured was entitled, pursuant to § 97-31, R.L.H. 1955, as amended, presently HRS § 386-32, to receive a weekly benefit equal to 66 2/3% of his average weekly wages for a period of 73.2 weeks. In determining the average weekly wages of the injured employee for both the temporary and permanent disabilities, the hearings officer relied upon § 97-50(6), R.L.H. 1955, as amended, presently HRS § 386-51(6), which provides:
If an employee, while under twenty-five years of age, sustains a work injury causing permanent disability or death, his average weekly wages shall be cоmputed on the basis of the wages which he would have earned in his employment had he been twenty-five years of age.
The hearings officer, on testimony of Mr. Soong, representing the employer and insurance carrier, found that the injured employee would havе received an average weekly wage of $80.00 had he been 25 years of age. The injured *579 employee agreed that the figurе of $80.00 was fair and accurate.
On appeal to the Labor and Industrial Relations Appeal Board, appellants argued that while the use of the hypothetical average weekly wage of earnings at age 25 was proper for computation of the permanent partial disability award, it was improper to use that amount as a basis for the temporary total disability award. The Appeals Board upheld the award as did the First Circuit Court. This appeal is from the judgment of the Circuit Court.
There is some force to appellant’s argument that use of the hypothetical age 25 wage base for temporary total disability creates a somewhat anomalous situation in the statutory scheme of workmen’s compensation. Computation of Morita’s weekly benefit on the basis of the hypothetical wage of $80.00 results in a weekly benefit of $53.34, a sum nearly equal to his average weekly wage of $56.00. A worker over 25 would, of course, receive a weekly benefit of 66 2/3% of his actual weekly wages; if such wages were $56.00 per week, the worker 25 years or older would receive a benefit of $37.34.
For the proposition that our legislature intended no such result, appellants cite the legislative history of the 1963 Workmen’s Compensation Act found in Study of the 'Workmen’s Compensation Law' in Hawaii by Professor Stefan A. Riesenfeld. There Professor Riesenfeld madе the suggestion that the State adopt a provision for a special computation of benefits ■ for minors and young adults in cases of permanent disability or death. At the same time, Professor Riesenfeld clearly indicated that the special computation for minors and young adults should apply “only in cases of permanent disability and death.”
We are of the opinion that it would be improрer to consider legislative history in the instant case. Where the
*580
language of the statute is plain and unambiguous there is no occasion for construction and the statute must be given effect according to its plain and obvious meaning.
(Public Utilities Comm.
v.
Narimatsu,
If an emplоyee is under twenty-seven years of age, his average weekly earnings on which to compute the benefits accruing for permanent disability or death shall be [the hypоthetical wage], (Emphasis added.)
Our statute, of course, contains no language expressly limiting the hypothetical wage base to benefits for permanent disability or death. Our statute indicates that a claimant under 25 years of age need only suffer an “injury *581 causing pеrmanent disability or death” in order that his benefits be computed on the hypothetical wage base.
Finally, appellants cite а New York intermediate appellate court decision,
Koutsakos
v.
Larson,
25 App. Div. 2d 590,
Affirmed.
Notes
The New York statute (Workmеn’s Compensation Law § 14 (McKinney 1965)) provided:
Except as otherwise provided in this Chapter, the average weekly wages of the injurеd employee at the time of the injury shall be taken as the basis upon which to compute compensation or death benеfits and shall be computed as follows:
5. If it is established that the injured employee was a minor when injured, and that under normal conditions his wages would be expected to increase, that fact may be considered in arriving at his average weekly wages.