Sinnes v. Daggett

Citations

• 80 Wash. 673
• 142 P. 5
• 1914 Wash. LEXIS 1603

Syllabus

<p>Master and Servant — Workmen’s Compensation Act — Permanant Partial Disability — Statutes — Construction. A workman injured while engaged in a hazardous occupation is not entitled to an award by the industrial insurance commission as for “permanent total disability,” but can recover for “permanent partial disability,” where his injuries resulted in the loss of portions of his fingers, subd. (b) of the act, 3 Rem. & Bal. Code, § 6604-5, expressly defining permanent total disability as the loss of both legs or both arms, one leg or one arm, total loss of eyesight, etc., and subd. (f) defining permanent partial disability as the loss of one foot, one leg, one hand . . . “one or more fingers,” etc.</p> <p>Same—Award for Injuries—Discretion of Commissioners — Review by Court. Under subd. (f) of § 5 of the workmen’s compensation act, 3 Rem. & Bal. Code, § 6604-5, defining permanent partial disability of an employee engaged in a hazardous occupation, and prescribing that the award be paid in a lump sum, but never to exceed $1,500, to be decided by the department, and § 20 of the act (Id., § 6604-20) providing for a review of decisions of the department, so far as such decision rests upon questions of fact, etc., the amount of the award is within the discretion of the department, and will not be reviewed, in the absence of capricious or arbitrary action in fixing the same, especially where the amount allowed the employee was $1,200.</p> <p>Courts—Power to Correct Error—Interlocutory Orders—Conclusiveness. Where, prior to final hearing on an appeal from a decision of the industrial insurance department, the then presiding judge awarded appellant a jury trial, and at the final hearing another judge overruled the holding of the former judge, the first ruling was not conclusive, but was an interlocutory order subject to change and correction before final disposition of the cause.</p>