Alfredson v. Department of Labor and Industries, 28046.

Decision Date16 October 1940
Docket Number28046.
Citation5 Wn.2d 648,105 P.2d 37
PartiesALFREDSON v. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIES et al.
CourtWashington Supreme Court

Proceeding under the Industrial Insurance Act by Carl Alfredson claimant, opposed by the Weyerhaeuser Timber Company employer. From a judgment of the superior court reversing an order of the Department of Labor and Industries of the state of Washington, the Department of Labor and Industries and employer appeal.

Affirmed.

Appeal from Superior Court, Grays Harbor County; William E Campbell, judge.

L. B. Donley, of Aberdeen, for Weyerhaeuser Timber Co.

Smith Troy and Harry L. Parr, both of Olympia, for Department of Labor and Industries.

Harry Ellsworth Foster, of Olympia, and A. D. Gillies, of Aberdeen, for respondent.

SIMPSON Justice.

This is an appeal by the Department of Labor and Industries and the Weyerhaeuser Timber Company from a judgment of the superior court, reversing an order of the department upon a claim for compensation under the Industrial Insurance Act. The claimant, Carl Alfredson, suffered an injury to his back while in the course of his employment as a tree faller. He presented his claim to the department and was allowed time loss without permanent partial disability by the supervisor of industrial insurance. From that order claimant appealed to the joint board, which, after a hearing, reversed the order of the supervisor and awarded forty degrees permanent partial disability. Being dissatisfied with the order of the joint board, claimant appealed to the superior court. The case, tried to a jury, resulted in a reversal of the departmental order. Motions for judgment n. o. v., or, in the alternative, for a new trial, were made and denied. Judgment was then entered upon the verdict, remanding the claim to the department, '* * * with instructions to classify the plaintiff's disability as a permanent total one, and to pay him the compensation provided by law for permanent total disability.'

The evidence taken Before the joint board and presented to the jury disclosed that Before the injury claimant was in good health; that he was injured by falling backwards upon and across a log at the time he was attempting to escape from a falling tree; that he was taken to a hospital where he stayed for about a month; and that since his injury he has suffered constant pain, has been unable to work, and has been compelled to wear a brace to support and protect his back. Respondent was examined by several doctors, among whom was Dr. K. L. Partlow who testified: 'Examination shows considerable muscle spasm in the mid back. Motions in all directions are limited and seemed to be painful. The patient doesn't bend very far in any direction Before he stops, as he says, due to pain. The x-ray examination disclosed some evidence of arthritis in that region, though not very far advanced, but it does show two areas, one in the 11th dorsal and one in the 9th dorsal from which there has been evidently a herniation of the disc which could account for the pain that this man complains of. In addition there is a rather large calcified gland which was neither in the gall bladder nor the kidney. It seems to be just inside the abdominal cavity and directly in front of the involved area. I don't know whether that gland is giving any sumptoms or not.'

Eleven other doctors examined the claimant and testified at the hearings. Most of them agreed that the fall aggravated the pre-existing arthritis, but there was a conflict among them as to whether or not some other injury had been sustained and as to the extent of disability. The majority did not believe that there was any injury other than an aggravation of the arthritis, nor that the claimant was fully disabled. They decided that respondent was disabled to an extent of forty per cent.

Appellants contend (1) that the court erred in not granting a judgment n. o. v. to the defendant, because the claimant had not produced a preponderance of the evidence necessary to overthrow the statutory presumption that the decision of the department was correct; and (2) that the testimony in this cause conclusively shows that the department acted within its power, correctly construed the law and found the facts, and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
28 cases
  • Omeitt v. Department of Labor and Industries
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • October 31, 1944
    ... ... insurance cases has the same force and effect as a verdict in ... actions at law. Alfredson v. Department of Labor & ... Industries, 5 Wash.2d 648, 105 P.2d 37; Calkins v ... Department of Labor & Industries, 10 Wash.2d 565, 117 ... ...
  • McLaren v. Department of Labor and Industries
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • November 9, 1940
    ... ... such cases as this, now have the same force and effect as in ... actions in law. Alfredson v. Dept. of Labor and ... Industries, Wash., 105 P.2d 37. Unfortunately for the ... appellant, chapter 184, page 579, Laws of 1939, so ... ...
  • Nelson v. Department of Labor and Industries
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • August 4, 1941
    ... ... any labor.' ... Within ... the rule laid down in Alfredson v. Department of Labor & ... Industries, 5 Wash.2d 648, 105 P.2d 37, the evidence was ... sufficient to take the case to the jury. That ... ...
  • Hastings v. Department of Labor and Industries
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • November 1, 1945
    ...11 Wash.2d 51, 118 P.2d 413; Roellich v. Department of Labor and Industries, 20 Wash.2d 674, 148 P.2d 957 . In the Alfredson case, supra [5 Wash.2d 648, 105 P.2d 39], the is expressed in the following language: 'The presumption of the correctness of the joint board's findings is for the con......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT