Legal Opinion · Dissent

Champagne v. Department of Labor & Industries

Washington Supreme Court

Decided February 23, 1945No. 29271Published

1DissentGrady, J.

(dissenting) — I am not in accord with the view expressed in the majority opinion — that the proper method of submitting cases of this kind to a jury is by interrogatories limiting the jury to a determination of whether the department found and allowed the claimant the proper percentage of permanent partial disability, and, if not, what would be the proper allowance in percentage for his injury.

There is nothing in the workmen’s compensation act justifying such procedure. The act speaks in terms of money compensation to be paid to an injured workman. There are certain specified permanent…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Harrington v. Department of Labor & IndustriesWashington Supreme Court · 1941
  2. Yockey v. Department of Labor & IndustriesWashington Supreme Court · 1944

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

Powered by the Exa API