Lease v. Baker, McHenry & Welch, Inc.

Dissenting Opinion

Hoffman, P.J.

I dissent from the opinion of the majority. I do, however, agree with the definition in the majority opinion of “industrial blindness”, Le., a man is “industrially blind” only when he has less than 20/200 vision with glasses. Accepting this definition, it is clear that appellant did not have a prior physical condition under Acts 1929, ch. 172, § 33, as amended by Acts 1945, ch. 284, § 2, p. 1261, Burns Ind. Stat. Anno., § 40-1305, 1965 Replacement. Only if appellant would have had vision of less than 20/20 “with glasses” prior to the accident involved in this…