sarily a jury question. The loss of sight of both eyes constitutes permanent total disability. The determination of the extent of Canfield Midway Oil Co., 1 Cal. I. A. C. Dec. 580. Where a workman, as a result of coming in contact with a high-power electric current, sustained a permanent complete disablement of the right arm, shoulder, and hand, spinal deformity, and complete loss of motion of spine, shoulders, and neck, limited motion of the right leg, and distortion and lameness in both feet, ne has suffered a 100 per cent. permanent disability, which entitles him to an award of 65 per cent. of his average earnings for 240 weeks, and a pension of 40 per cent. of his average earnings thereafter for life. Gibney v. Caspar Lumber Co., 2 Cal. I. A. C. Dec. 825. In Haughland v. Howe, 1 Conn. Comp. Dec. 401, where the claimant, though having no useful vision, as far as ability to earn was concerned, in the injured eye, was able to count figures at a distance of two feet, it was held he could not recover specific indemnity under the schedule for "complete and permanent loss of sight," though he was awarded for partial incapacity, and provision made for reopening the finding in case of further diminution of sight. Where the weight of the evidence, medical and otherwise, showed that the employé was totally incapacitated for work by the results of the injury, due to the amputation of his arm, and that another surgical operation was needed to relieve a condition of sensitiveness following the operation, it was held that he was totally incapacitated for work. Clementi v. Travelers' Insur. Co., 2 Mass. Wk. Comp. Cases, 330 (decision of Com. of Arb.). Where claimant lost by the accident the entire sight of his right eye and 95 per cent. of his left, and sustained injuries to his head which made it impossible for him to stoop or bend over without pain, and there was testimony that he was unable to engage in any occupation, the evidence of injury was sufficient to support a finding of permanent total disability. State ex rel. Casualty Co. of America v. District Court, supra. Where the arm of a domestic servant was stiffened by the injury, so that it would not flex more than 20 per cent., was also atrophied and stiffened at the shoulder so that she could not raise her arm above her head, and the nerves to the extensor muscles of her wrist were severed, so that though able to do some work as a domestic, she required assistance in nearly every line of the work, and could not have secured employment as a regular domestic because of her condition, she was totally incapacitated. McGill v. Dunn County, Bul. Wis. Indus. Com., 1912-13, p. 33. • Sinnes v. Daggett, 80 Wash. 673, 142 Pac. 5. 7 Kraljlvich v. Yellow Aster Mining & Milling Co., 1 Cal. I. A. C. Dec. 554. The employé having suffered loss of both eyes, a permanent total disability is conclusively presumed, and he is entitled to a 100 per cent. rating, or the compensable disability in case of a previously impaired physical condition is reserved for consideration in another section. § 157. Permanent partial disability A workman is partially disabled where he is rendered less able to perform work." The per cent. of total disability that the injury in each case constitutes depends on the particular facts.10 The combined result of two accidents in the same employment may entitle the workman to compensation for a permanent partial disability, though, if each accident were considered separately, such compensation would not be due.11 Whether there is a permanent par indemnity of 65 per cent. of his average weekly earnings for 240 weeks, and thereafter 40 per cent. thereof for the remainder of life. Sampo v. Yellow Aster Mining & Milling Co., 2 Cal. I. A. C. Dec. 539; Galante v. Mammoth Copper Mining Co. of Maine, 2 Cal. I. A. C. Dec. 732. 8 See § 160, post. Where an employé, in consequence of an injury to his fingers, could not tightly close them in his hand, and was thereby rendered less able to perform his work, he was partially incapacitated from performing labor. Gailey v. Peet Bros. Mfg. Co., 98 Kan. 53, 157 Pac. 431. 10 Sinnes v. Daggett, 80 Wash. 673, 142 Pac. 5. Where an electric power station operator, by accidental contact with two blades of a switch he was polishing, had his arm burned off four inches below the elbow, and his right hand so badly burned that it was impossible for him to pick up articles, and his mouth and jaw so burned as to prevent distinct speech, the Commission found his disability sufficient to entitle him to an award of a life pension of 344 per cent. of his average weekly earnings, following the usual indemnity of 65 per cent. of his weekly wages for 240 weeks. Brooks v. Central California Traction Co., 2 Cal. I. A. C. Dec. 420. That an injury causing the amputation of the index finger of a carpenter and cabinet maker between the knuckle and proximal joint occasioned a permanent partial disability of 20 per cent., although he was able to do the same work as before the injury, was a finding of fact supported by the evidence. Frankfort General Ins. Co. v. Pillsbury (Cal.) 159 Pac. 150. 11 Where an employé lost the first joint of one finger of his left hand by accident, and two months later lost the joint of another finger of the same hand by another accident in the same employment, and no permanent par tial disability, where the disability would ordinarily be only partial, but is made total by a previously existing impairment, is considered in another section.12 Permanent disability ratings are made under the California Act with reference to the nature and extent of the injury, the age of the injured person, and his occupation. Thus the fact that the loss of a part of a finger on the left hand is more disabling to a carpenter than to a common laborer will be considered.13 After a permanent disability rating has been properly arrived at, it is not a defense that the employé returned to work before the termination of the period covered by the payments, or that the disability did not disqualify him for the kind of work which he was doing at the time of his injury.1 Inability of an injured employé, who is only tial disability compensation would be due if each accident were treated separately, but the combined result of the two accidents entitled the applicant to permanent partial disability indemnity of 54 per cent., it was awarded. Where both accidents occur in the same employment within a short space of time, and no compensation has been paid for the first, the percentage of permanent disability should be based upon the combined results of the two, as accords nearest to the actual injury or deprivation of earning power sustained. Berry v. Pacific Coast Steel Co., 2 Cal. I. A. C. Dec. 178. 12 See 160, post. 13 Johnson v. Hammond Lumber Co., 1 Cal. I. A. C. Dec. 574. The rating schedule for permanent partial disability is made, not solely with regard to the direct loss of earning power by reason of the injury, but with regard also to the impairment of physical efficiency for the remainder of the life of the injured employé. Immel v. American Beet Sugar Co., 2 Cal. I. A. C. Dec. 385. But where the circumstances of a special case indicate that the rating appearing in the schedule published by the Commission, as to a certain kind of permanent disability, is too low, or where the testimony shows that the framers of such schedule made an underestimate as regards a certain class of permanent disability, the Commission will not be bound by the schedule, but will rate such disability upon the basis indicated by the evidence to be proper. Lee v. Pacific Coast Steel Co., 3 Cal. I. A. C. Dec. 28. 14 Gabriel v. Northwestern Pacific R. R. Co., 2 Cal. I. A. C. Dec. 129. Where a carpenter accidentally has the index finger of his left hand severed, but within twenty days returns to his work at the same wage, and the par partially disabled, to find employment by reason of hard times or of the scarcity of employment, cannot be taken into consideration in determining the extent of a disability indemnity to be awarded him. The California Commission is authorized to take into consideration, in determining the extent of temporary partial disability only: (1) The work which such employé with reasonable diligence is capable of doing in view of the nature of his physical injuries; and (2) the handicap of an injured or sick employé over able-bodied persons seeking employment.15 This Commission has power to award compensation for a permanent partial disability amounting to less than 10 per cent. of total disability.16 No permanent partial disability award is given for an injury resulting in the loss of the little finger at the distal joint and the tip of the third finger between the end and the distal joint, both on the right hand, for the reason that the disability caused thereby is of too slight a nature to be compensated in this manner. Full temporary total and partial disability award will be made for such injury, however.17 Where an applicant sustains a fractured leg, thereby entitling him to a temporary total disability until his recovery, and also sustains. a permanent disability to his toes, but the amount to which he is entitled because of his permanent disability is less than the amount paid him as a temporary disability indemnity, he is not entitled to any compensation for his permanent injury.18 ties stipulate that he is able to do as good work and as much of it as he had done previously, his permanent disability will nevertheless be rated with reference to the nature of his physical injury or disfigurement, the occupation of the injured employé, and his age, especially where the stipulation is shown to have been entered into by inadvertence and to be untrue in fact. Immel v. American Beet Sugar Co., 2 Cal. I. A. C. Dec. 385. 15 Johnson v. Cluett Peabody Co., 2 Cal. I. A. C. Dec. 7. 16 Solloway v. Kopperud, 2 Cal. I. A. C. Dec. 187. The Commission has power to award compensation for a less per cent. of total disability than 10 per cent., here 24. Mass. Bonding & Ins. Co. v. Pillsbury, 2 Cal. I. A. C. Dec. 480, 170 Cal. 767, 151 Pac. 419. 17 Shushke v. Vail & Vickers, 2 Cal. I. A. C. Dec. 182. 18 Mason v. Knight, 1 Cal. I. A. C. Dec. 493. The provision of the New York Act that, in case of partial disability not otherwise specifically provided for in section 15, the compensation shall be 66% per cent. of the difference between the average weekly wages of the injured employé and his wage-earning capacity after the accident, this compensation to continue during the disability, subject to certain conditions and limitations, applies to a case of the loss of the tip of the first phalange of a finger, where the wages received after the accident are less than those received prior thereto.19 The amount to be awarded for permanent partial disability under the Washington Act is in the discretion of the Industrial Insurance Department.20 § 158. Temporary total disability The facts of each case of temporary disability must determine whether or not it is total.21 Total temporary disability no longer 19 (Wk. Comp. Act, § 15, subds. 3, 4) Mockler v. Hawkes (Sup.) 158 N. Y. Supp. 759. 20 Sinnes v. Daggett, 80 Wash. 673, 142 Pac. 5. 21 As to relation between total disability and inability, because of the injury, to obtain work, see § 155, ante. Where the evidence shows that an injured employé is able to work a few days at a time, but that whenever he does attempt to work a relapse is inevitable after a few days, such employé is still under a total temporary disability. Colot v. Union Lumber Co., 1 Cal. I. A. C. Dec. 512. In Verderame v. Blenner, 1 Conn. Comp. Dec. 325, where claimant sustained an injury consisting of the severance of the artery, nerves, and tendons upon the anterior surface of her left wrist, she was awarded compensation for total temporary incapacity. Where on supplemental hearing it was shown that she had little use of her left hand, the fingers contracting upon the palm, and she being unable to dress herself or do any amount of work, it was held there was still total incapacity resulting from the injury. The employé was totally incapacitated for work where a girl, 15 years of age, suffered an injury as a result of which the ring finger was wholly amputated and the index fingers were rendered permanently incapable of use below the middle joint, and the little finger also injured (Cunka v. American Mut. Liab. Insur. Co., 2 Mass. Wk. Comp. Cases, 491 [decision of Com. of Arb.]); where an employé received a blow in the right eye from a belt which carried power to a boring machine on which he was employed, and a trau |