The fact that an employee is able to follow gainful occupation after suffering a total and permanent disability by reason of occupational disease, does not prevent such employee from receiving compensation for total and permanent disability under the definition of disability contained in the Idaho statutes. Herbert v. Ford Motor Co., 285 Mich. 607, 281 N.W. 374; Foley v. Detroit United Railway, 190 Mich. 507, 157 N.W. 45; Woodcock v. Dodge Bros., 213 Mich. 233, 181 N.W. 976, 17 A.L.R. 203; Gauthier v. Ford Motor Co., 281 Mich. 358, 275 N.W. 172. The Industrial Accident Board has no jurisdiction to determine in praesenti claimant's condition in futuro which "might come early or late, or might never come during claimant's lifetime", and thusly attempt to relegate the matter into the category of contingent future possibilities.

A substantially similar holding was made in Myers v. Wadsworth Manfg. Co., 214 Mich. 636, and Geis v. Packard Motor Car Co., 214 Mich. 646. As late as Gauthier v. Ford Motor Co., 281 Mich. 358, it was said: "Plaintiff, having been injured prior to the passage of Act No. 376, Pub. Acts 1927, was entitled to compensation for total disability regardless of whether or not he returned to work in other employment."