{
  "id": 1724191,
  "name": "O. K. Processors, Inc. v. Charles Dye",
  "name_abbreviation": "O. K. Processors, Inc. v. Dye",
  "decision_date": "1967-02-13",
  "docket_number": "5-4120",
  "first_page": "1002",
  "last_page": "1004",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "241 Ark. 1002"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "411 S.W.2d 290"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 293,
    "char_count": 4387,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.496,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.6077075705124792e-07,
      "percentile": 0.685010014097347
    },
    "sha256": "3a125d4e16c2a033036cf2c9a56f00a74fd64dff07982578255b16310f5b4bcc",
    "simhash": "1:16213cc5b9e72a8e",
    "word_count": 737
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:36:03.113111+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "O. K. Processors, Inc. v. Charles Dye"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Paul Ward, Justice.\nWe are here called on to construe certain provisions of Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 81-1313 (Bepl. 1960) (a part\" of\u2019the Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act) relative to multiple permanent partial disabilities to :the body'as a whole.\n\u25a0'\u2022Undisputed Facts. On February 8, 1964 Charles Dye (appellee)-, an employee of O.K. Processors, Inc. (appellant), received an injury to an area of his lower back. Previously, he had received somewhat similar injuries, on two occasions, while working \u2022 for. another employer in Oklahoma. For the first injury he was adjudged to have received a 5% permanent partial disability to the body as a whole, and for the second injury lie was similarly adjudged to have received a 20% disability. He has received full payment for these injuries.\nFor the injury on February 8, 1964 the Referee found that appellee had suffered a maximum disability of 15% to the body as a whole. However, he also found that appellee was not entitled to any compensation because his injury of 15% did not exceed the two previous injuries totaling 25%.\nThe Commission reversed the Referee and awarded appellee compensation on the basis of 10% disability to the body as a whole, holding (in essence) that the 20% injury was to a different part of his body but that the 5% injury was not. Accordingly the Commission held that the 5% injury should be deducted from the last injury of 15%. On appeal to the circuit court the Commission was affirmed.\nFor reasons hereafter set out we have concluded the circuit court must be affirmed.\nThe statute referred to previously (Section 81-1313) deals with \u201cThe money allowance payable to an injured employee for disability . . . .\u201d Subsection .(e) of the statute deals with \u201cscheduled permanent injuries\u201d. It is agreed that the three injuries involved here are? not classified as scheduled injuries. Subsection (d) deals with \u201cother cases\u201d where there is a permanent partial disability (as were these three) and says such \u201cshall be apportioned to the body as a whole. ...\u201d Subsection (f) deals with a \u201cpermanent disability arising from a subsequent accident\u201d, as is the case here. Subparagraph (2) [under (b) above] applies where a subsequent injury occurs under a different employer \u2014 as is the case here. Finally, under \u201cii\u201d of subparagraph (2) it is provided that \u201cthe injured employee shall be paid compensation. ...\u201d\n(In the case here there is no dispute over the amount of compensation, if any is due).\nIt is our opinion that appellee, is covered by the provision \u201cii\u201d above.\nHowever, appellant raises another issue that must be resolved. In essence, appellant here insists that appellee is not entitled to compensation because the injury on February 8, 1967 was to the same portion of the body as was the previous 20% injuries in Oklahoma. Ve do not agree that this is true. We think it was a fact question for the Commission to decide.\nThe Commission found that the 20% permanent partial disability was to \u201cthe cervical spine which involved the neck and head\u201d. This finding is not questioned. The Commission further found that \u201cthe present disability is distinct and separate from the previous disability due to the specific locations of the injured areas. ...\u201d This finding is supported by Dr. Martin who testified that appellee\u2019s leg went through a hole in the wall; that he fell on his elbow; that he was injured in the area of the pelvis, and; that his leg was injured.\nIt is well settled by numerous decisions of this Court that we will sustain the Commission\u2019s finding of a fact question if it is supported by substantial evidence. We find there is such evidence in this instance.\nIt appears that the conclusion above reached is in accord with Larson\u2019s interpretation of this portion of the statute. In volume 2 of his treatise on Workmen\u2019s Compensation Law, \u00a7 59.42, he says:\n\u201cThe capacities of the human being cannot be arbitrarily and finally divided and written off by percentages. The fact that a man has once received compensation as for 50% of total disability does not mean that ever after he is in the eyes of compensation law but half a man, so that he can never again receive a compensation award going beyond the other 50% of total.\u201d\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Paul Ward, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Harper, Harper, Young & Durden, for appellant.",
      "D. L. Oraoe, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "O. K. Processors, Inc. v. Charles Dye\n5-4120\n411 S. W. 2d 290\nOpinion delivered February 13,1967\nHarper, Harper, Young & Durden, for appellant.\nD. L. Oraoe, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "1002-01",
  "first_page_order": 1024,
  "last_page_order": 1026
}