George W. Helme Co. v. Middlesex Common Pleas
GEORGE W. HELME COMPANY, PROSECUTOR v. MIDDLESEX COMMON PLEAS AND PETER BARANOWSKI
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
The opinion of the court was delivered by Parker, J.
The only question is whether the award was according to the statute. The injury was permanent, con *532 sisting of the loss of the first phalanx of the second finger, all of the third finger and the first phalanx of the fourth finger. The weekly wage was $13.20. The award was:
For one phalanx of second finger, minimum $5 for thirty weeks................... $150
For third finger, fifty per cent, of $13.20, twenty weeks ........................ 132
One phalanx of fourth finger, minimum $5 for fifteen weeks ..................... 75 $357
Prosecutor’s claim is that as all three fingers were injured in the same accident, the time should run concurrently, and that this would result for the first fifteen weeks in a total made up (disregarding minimum clause) of $3.30 for second finger; $6.60 for the third and $3.-30 for .the fourth, in all, $13.20, to which the maximum of $10 a week in clause (a) of paragraph 11 should apply; for the next five weeks there should be a concurrent award of $9.90 for a whole finger and a phalanx of another; and the minimum of $5 for ten weeks more, making a total award of $249.50. This claim, however, is fallacious. The fallacy consists in regarding these statutory awards for permanent injury as payments for the employe’s time as though the disability were temporary only, whereas they are in reality a statutory method of ascertaining the damages by a specified multiple of the weekly wage, payable normally in weekly installments and reduced to present value if commuted to a lump sum. The intent of the legislature is made plain by the proviso in clause (c) of paragraph 11, that in no case shall the amount received for more than one finger exceed the amount provided in the schedule for loss of a hand, viz., fifty per cent, of wages for one hundred and fifty weeks. The $10 maximum would apply to the award for the third finger in this case if the man’s wages had been.over $20 a week.
*533 The award was correctly made as to amount. It does not appear in what order the weekly payments are to be made, but the court would he justified in directing payments of $6.60 per week for twenty weeks and $5 per week for the remaining forty-five weeks.
The judgment is affirmed, with costs.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 5 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.