Olson v. Manion's Inc.
1973 Mont. LEXIS 517, 162 Mont. 197, 510 P.2d 6 (1973)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Montana's Workmen’s Compensation Act, compensation for permanent partial disability is calculated based on the difference between the wages received at the time of injury and the wages the injured employee is able to earn thereafter in any suitable field of employment, without accounting for inflation or subsequent wage increases in the employee's original job.
Facts:
- On January 23, 1962, Duane Olson sustained industrial injuries that impeded his movement and ability to assume certain positions.
- Olson's employer, Manion’s Inc., a car dealership and garage, accepted his claim under Plan 2 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act.
- At the time of his injury in 1962, Olson was earning $2.60 per hour at Manion's Inc.
- By 1972, the same job Olson held at Manion’s Inc. paid $4.60 per hour.
- Olson's present job, which pays $3.80 per hour, is substitute employment because he is physically unable to perform the job he held prior to his injury.
Procedural Posture:
- Duane Olson filed a claim with the Industrial Accident Board, which was accepted under Plan 2 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act.
- The Industrial Accident Board paid Olson temporary total disability compensation for a period of 9 and 4/7ths weeks.
- In 1967, the Industrial Accident Board, on rehearing, determined that Olson had suffered permanent partial disability from 5% of the back to 20% of the body as a whole.
- Later in 1967, a subsequent application for a hearing by Olson was denied by the Industrial Accident Board.
- Olson appealed the Industrial Accident Board’s order to the district court of the eleventh judicial district, Flathead County.
- After several continuances, the district court on July 5, 1972, ruled against Olson, adopting the Board’s findings of fact and conclusions of law which denied admissibility of certain evidence offered by Olson.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the Industrial Accident Board and the district court err in refusing to admit and consider evidence of a claimant's impaired earning capacity, specifically regarding inflation and increased wages for the claimant's pre-injury job, when determining permanent partial disability benefits?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Daly
No, the Industrial Accident Board and the district court did not err in refusing to admit and consider evidence of impaired earning capacity based on inflation or increased wages in Olson's original job. The court held that Section 92-703, R.C.M.1947, of the Montana Workmen’s Compensation Act, establishes compensable disability as the difference between the wages received at the time of injury and the wages the injured employee is able to earn thereafter in any suitable field of employment or profession. The court explicitly noted that the Act imposes no limitation requiring consideration of earning ability only in the same employment and makes no provision for inflation or parity. Citing 99 C.J.S. Workmen’s Compensation § 295 and Desrosiers v. Dionne Bros. Furniture, Inc., the court emphasized that the workers' compensation system is statutory, not based on common law tort concepts. While acknowledging Olson's meritorious argument for including inflation, the court stated it is neither its function nor prerogative to rewrite the Act, as statutory amendment is a legislative function. The court concluded that where the language of a statute is plain, unambiguous, direct, and certain, there is nothing left for the court to construe, as articulated in Mont. Ass’n of Tobacco and Candy Distributors v. State Board of Equalization.
Concurring - Mr. Chief Justice James J. Harrison and Mr. Justices Haswell, Castles and John C. Harrison
Yes, the concurring justices agreed with the majority's decision and reasoning, affirming that the district court's judgment should stand based on the interpretation of the Workmen's Compensation Act.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the strict interpretation of 'earning capacity' under Montana's Workmen’s Compensation Act for permanent partial disability claims. It establishes a precedent that courts will not introduce economic factors like inflation or market wage increases for original positions into statutory compensation calculations, reinforcing judicial deference to legislative drafting. The ruling underscores that any expansion or modification of workers' compensation benefits, even to address acknowledged economic realities like inflation, must originate from legislative action rather than judicial interpretation. This limits the types of evidence claimants can present and solidifies the 'wages received at time of injury' as a fixed baseline, potentially diminishing the real value of long-term disability awards over time.
