Adkins v. Rives Plating Corp.

• Decision Date: 27 November 1953
• Docket Number: No. 81,81
• Citation: 61 N.W.2d 117,338 Mich. 265
• Parties: ADKINS v. RIVES PLATING CORP. et al.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

Page 117

61 N.W.2d 117

338 Mich. 265

ADKINS v. RIVES PLATING CORP. et al.

No. 81.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Nov. 27, 1953.

Raymond H. Rapaport, Lansing, for plaintiff and appellee.

Harry F. Briggs, Lansing (Peter Munroe, Lansing, of counsel), for defendants and appellants.

Before the Entire Bench.

BUSHNELL, Justice.

Plaintiff Joseph Adkins sustained an injury while in the employ of defendant Rives Plating Corporation on December 15, 1950, which resulted in a fracture of the radius bone of his left forearm. He was paid compensation at $28 per week for total disability from the date of the injury to and including May 30, 1951. He returned to work with lighter duties on May 31, 1951, at which time his compensation ceased because of his partial recovery. Thereafter payments were made to him of wages at the same rate that he formerly earned.

On Sunday, September 9, 1951, plaintiff was involved in an accident while riding a bicycle. That accident and its results are described by Adkins, in his testimony, as follows:

'Well, I was riding a bicycle up the street, and went around a corner, the bike tipped over with me, I hit with my right hand and my left hand came over and hit too, and when my left hand hit it broke. Well, I knew it was broken; I picked the bike up, took it back to the house, my neighbor was there, I told him to take me to the doctor in my car, that I broke my arm, he did and Doctor Parker he sent me to the hospital.'

Adkins filed an application for hearing and adjustment of claim on December 24, 1951, in which he stated:

'1. That this claim relates to a personal injury which occurred on or about December 15, 1950, or to a disablement from occupational disease, which occurred on or about * * *

'2. That the injury or disablement occurred at Rives Junction, Jackson, Michigan, and in the following manner: Injuried was buffing, got away from him and struck him on the left forearm; Weekly earnings, $90.00.

'3. Nature of disability--Injured left arm.'

Dr. Richard C. Demming and Dr. M. D. Parker treated Adkins for the original fracture of his left arm, and also attended him after his second injury. Dr. Demming testified in part:

'Q. What did you find? A. We opened the radius and at the fracture site I found that actually there had been a little, or no bone union.

'Q. You say had been--you mean prior to the second injury? A. Yes, that the previous fracture had never healed by bony union.

'Q. And what else did you find? A. Oh, that the bone ends were extremely hard, very dense, with an indication that there was a non-union, non-bony union, or a very delayed union.

'Q. Then, from your observation, during the surgery, were you able to form an opinion as to whether or not the fracture, original fracture had healed? A. The original fracture had not healed.

* * *

* * * 'Q. Let me ask you if what you found when you performed the bone reduction, was in your opinion a new fracture, as distinguished from an aggravation of an existing fracture? A. Well the old fracture was still present and unhealed, and that there was a fracture through the fibrous union at the site of the previous fracture; in other words, a new fracture through an unhealed old fracture.'

* * *

* * *

'Mr. Rapaport: * * * give us your opinion Doctor, if you have one as to whether or not the original accident, namely the fracture when the man was buffing, might, on could be considered to be the cause of the condition which you reduced in September of 1951? A. Yes, I feel that the original injury was the cause of the second fracture superimposed on a trauma.'

Dr. Parker's testimony was confined to the treatment following the first injury and his examination of Adkins' condition after the second injury. He stated in part:

'In September--on September 9, 1951, Joe was brought to my office with the story that he had fallen from the bicycle and had injured his left arm, and in looking at it it was obvious that it was injured, that it was fractured. I took him into Foote Hospital, had him X-rayed immediately and determined that there was a fracture, that there was an angulation at the site of the old fracture, and I called in Doctor Demming as the Orthopedic Consultant again and it was Doctor Demming's opinion at that time that we should procrastinate no longer, but Joe should have bone reduction, with application of plate and bone graft. This was done on the 11th of September, and Joe had an uneventful recovery, except for his discomfort; and subsequent X-rays proved that there was good healing. The cast was eventually removed, I believe around the latter part of November of first of December, and Joe has had so far an uneventful recovery.'

The deputy commissioner awarded compensation----

'at the rate of $28.00 per week for total disability from December 16, 1950 to May 30, 1951 and at the rate of $28.00 per week for total disability from September 9, 1951 to December 28, 1951.'

He further found----

'that the employe is still partially disabled and entitled to receive compensation at the rate of $28.00 per week for the week ending January 4, 1952; $16.80 for the week ending January 11, 1952; $11.91 for the week ending January 18, 1952; $28.00 for the week ending January 25, 1952; payments to stop as of January 25, 1952 because plaintiff returned to work at equal or greater wages. Defendants may have credit for the compensation voluntarily paid.'

An amended award was later filed which included medical and hospital expenses. In affirming these awards the commission, on review, said in part:

'There can be no doubt that plaintiff had not fully recovered from the first accident when the second accident occurred. He was not able to do buffing, the heavier work at which he was employed at the time of the original injury, because of the condition of his left arm. His inability to work as a buffer was a direct result of that injury. It is evident from the medical testimony that the failure to heal of the original fracture was the proximate cause of the second fracture. There is a causal relation between the accident plaintiff sustained December 15, 1950 and the disability commencing September 10, 1951.'

Appellant State Accident Fund denies that the plaintiff has suffered any compensable disability since May 30, 1951, or that he is entitled to reimbursement for hospital expenses when he himself did not make such expenditures.

Decision rests primarily upon the implication of the first question, which is atated by the appellee in this manner:

'Where the Workmen's Compensation Commission's finding of fact that there is a causal connection between plaintiff's disability and a compensable accident is supported by competent evidence, should the finding be affirmed by the Supreme Court?'

It is fundamental that the commission is the sole trier of the facts, and that this Court cannot weigh the evidence. See C.L.1948, § 413.12, Stat.Ann.1950 Rev. § 17.186, which reads in part:

'The findings of fact made by the compensation commission acting within its powers, shall, in the absence of fraud, be conclusive, but the supreme court shall have power to review questions of law involved in any final decision or determination of said compensation commission'.

We must, therefore, accept the finding of the commission that the failure of the original injury to heal was the proximate cause of the second fracture, unless that finding is the result of an erroneous application of the law.

The original injury may or may not have been a contributing factor in that it rendered plaintiff susceptible to the second injury, but it cannot be said to be the proximate cause of the disability resulting from the second injury. The proximate cause of the second...