amount of compensation for amputation, rather than cause of injury, disputed
How later courts described this case
- amount of compensation for amputation, rather than cause of injury, disputed
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
FORT, J.,
dissenting.
The majority concludes that ORS 656.214 (2) (b) does not apply to this type of injury, and relies on Graham v. State Ind. Acc. Com., 164 Or 626 , 102 P2d 927 (1940).
At the time Graham was decided, the statute read:
“For the loss by separation of one [1] hand at or above the wrist joint, or the permanent and complete loss of the use of one [1] hand, seventy-six [76] degrees.” 5 Oregon Code Annotated (1935 Supp), § 49.1827.6.
*334 In 1957, the legislature amended the law to provide:
“For the loss by separation of one forearm at or above the wrist joint, or complete loss by separation of all five digits, 150 degrees, or for the permanent and complete loss of the use of one forearm, 121 degrees.” (Italics supplied.) Oregon Laws 1957, ch 449, pp 633-34.
In 1965, the legislature adopted the present Workmen’s Compensation Act, and continued the 1957 provision therein.
By Oregon Laws 1967, ch 529, p 1240, the legislature amended ORS 656.214 (2)(b) to read:
“For the loss {by separation] of one forearm at or above the wrist joint, or complete loss {by sepa-ration]' of all five digits, 150 degrees, or a proportion thereof for losses less than a complete loss R er íer the pcrmanost and completo less e# the «se e£ ene foroarmT 434 degrees!.” Material in brackets was omitted and italicized material added by the legislature.
Thus, since Graham , (ORS 656.214 (2) (b)), the law has gone from a provision requiring “loss by separation of one hand at or above the wrist joint or permanent and complete loss of the use of one hand,” to “loss by separation of one forearm at or above the wrist joint, or complete loss by separation of all five digits” in 1957, and then in 1967 to “the loss of one forearm at or above the wrist joint or complete loss of all five digits * * *, or a proportion thereof for losses less than a complete loss.”
By Oregon Laws 1957, ch 449, p 635, the legislature amended ORS 656.214 (3), which provides further guidance concerning digit injuries, by adding thereto the following:
“* * * A proportionate loss of use may be al *335 lowed for an uninjured finger or thumb where there has been a loss of effective opposition.”
Here it is undisputed that the workman, under the foregoing statutory tests, sustained functional impairment with respect to all five of his digits. The award made by this court expressly so holds by making a separate award for each of the five digits.
Nothing in OKS 656.214 (2) (j) and (k) deals with a case where “all five digits” sustain functional impairment. OKS 656.214 (2)(b), on the contrary, by its express terms, is made applicable to that situation.
Ordinary rules of statutory construction would therefore require that an injury to all five digits be treated under OKS 656.214 (2) (b), and injuries to less than all five digits be treated under OKS 656.214 (2) (j) and (k). Accordingly, I would affirm the trial court, and respectfully record my dissent.