Quirk v. Electric Machinery Manufacturing Co.

Peterson, Justice.

The issue in this workmen’s compensation case is whether, for purposes of the second-injury statute, Minn. St. 176.131, the term *327“physical impairment” means an impairment of one’s body or is limited to impairment of one member of the body. As raised in the circumstances of this case, it is determinative of whether a second injury is chargeable to the special compensation fund.

The employee, Lorraine E. Quirk, worked for the employer, Electric Machinery Manufacturing Company, as a coil taper, work requiring exercise of the hands and wrists. She sustained a personal injury some…