Legal Opinion · Dissent

Cummins v. State Workmen's Compensation Commissioner

West Virginia Supreme Court

Decided February 25, 1969No. 12781Published

1DissentBrowning, Judge

It is with deference that I dissent from the holding of the Court in this case. It is my opinion that the majority has simplified a complex question by determining that this language of Code, 23-4-6a, “whether or not capacity for work is or has been impaired by such silicosis;” is clear and unambiguous, disregarding all other provisions of the workmen’s compensation law, and holding that this claimant is eligible for an award for first stage silicosis even though he is receiving benefits from the fund under a total permanent or fife award from a former employer. *789All statutory references…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. O'Brien v. Albert A. Albrecht Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1919
  2. Clarence Rupert v. Todd Shipyards Corporation, a Corporation and Pacific Indemnity Company, a CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1956
  3. Oliver v. State Workmen's Compensation CommissionerWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1968
  4. Linville v. State Compensation CommissionerWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1932
  5. State v. ZirbelWisconsin Supreme Court · 1920

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API