The specific losses are now confined to situations where there is neither a total nor partial loss of disability. Boulanger v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., supra; Weber v. Kieckhefer Container Co., La.App. 1950, 45 So.2d 562; Moore v. Aysen, La. App. 1 Cir., 1953, 69 So.2d 551; Dronet v. American Mutual Liability Ins. Co., La. App. 1 Cir., 1953, 69 So.2d 114; Todd v. Sunnyland Contracting Co., La. App.Orl. 1956, 85 So.2d 537; Trahan v. Louisiana State Rice Milling Co., La. App. 1 Cir., 1958, 100 So.2d 914; Green v. Harper, La. App. 2 Cir., 1958, 103 So.2d 474. See, also, Malone's "Louisiana Workmen's Compensation," page 352, § 279.
We have no difficulty in recognizing the jurisprudence to be that the compensation should be computed on a six day work week instead of a five day work week. In the case of Moore v. Aysen, La. App., 69 So.2d 551, 554, this court quoted the Supreme Court in Jarrell v. Travelers Ins. Co., 218 La. 531, 50 So.2d 22, 23, as follows: "(A)n injured workman is entitled to compensation at the rate of pay in effect on the actual day of the injury, based not upon the number of days per week he was employed but upon the number of days he could possibly have secured employment had he not been injured, or six days a week."
Despite the fact that he worked only one day a week, the Supreme Court computed his compensation on the basis of a six day week, and allowed compensation on the basis of an $18 weekly wage. The Jarrell decision was followed with approval in Moore v. Aysen, La.App., 69 So.2d 551 and Martin v. Great American Indemnity Company, La.App., 75 So.2d 415, 420. In the Martin case, this Court said:
His work record, therefore, is consistent with his regular period of employment and indicates the actual time worked in excess of his regular schedule was negligible. Counsel for claimant argues the following cases should govern this court in resolving that plaintiff's weekly rate of compensation should be computed on a six-day work week basis: Rylander v. T. Smith Son, Inc., 1933, 177 La. 716, 149 So. 434; Calhoon v. Meridian Lumber Company, Inc., 1934, 180 La. 343, 156 So. 412; Buxton v. W. Horace Williams Company, 1943, 203 La. 261, 13 So.2d 855; Jarrell v. Travelers Insurance Company, 1950, 218 La. 531, 50 So.2d 22; Troquille v. Lacaze's Estate, 1953, 222 La. 611, 63 So.2d 139; Moore v. Aysen, La.App., 1953, 69 So.2d 551; Martin v. Great American Indemnity Company, La.App., 1954, 75 So.2d 415. We do not agree with the contention.
Therefore, plaintiff was entitled to 65% of his weekly wage of $51.60, or $30.00 per week, the maximum compensation permitted to be paid under the statute. This is the present jurisprudence on this question as the Supreme Court construed the statute in Jarrell v. Travelers Insurance Company, 218 La. 531, 50 So.2d 22, and followed by us in Moore v. Aysen, La. App., 69 So.2d 551. Since the case of Jarrell v. Travelers Insurance Company, supra, the courts have held that an employee's compensation for disability benefits has to be computed on six days per week irrespective of a specific contract of hiring for a less number of days in a work week, and it makes no difference whether he works one day, five days or less.