Alm v. Morris Barick Cattle Co.
| Citation | 38 N.W.2d 161,240 Iowa 1174 |
| Decision Date | 14 June 1949 |
| Docket Number | 47434. |
| Parties | ALM v. MORRIS BARICK CATTLE CO. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Iowa |
Rehearing Denied Sept. 23, 1949.
Alan H. Mayer and E. C. Halbach, both of Clinton for appellant.
Emmett P. Delaney, of Clinton, for appellee.
Claimant Albert F. Alm was awarded compensation for injuries received while unloading cattle for appellant, Morris Barick Cattle Company, in the yards at Clinton, September 26, 1946.
I. Appellant contends the record does not show claimant was injured in the course of his employment for it. In considering the sufficiency of the proof to support the award the evidence will be viewed in the light most favorable to claimant. Pohler v. T. W. Snow Const. Co., Iowa, 33 N.W.2d 416. Although the facts may be in dispute, the Commissioner's findings are conclusive if supported by substantial evidence. Reynolds v. George & Hoyt, 230 Iowa 1267, 1271, 300 N.W 530. The expression 'injuries * * * arising out of and in the course of the employment' should be given a broad and liberal interpretation. Pohler v. T. W. Snow Const. Co. supra .
Appellant's local representative and salesman, August Benson, employed claimant for appellant. Benson's authority to employ claimant is not questioned. Nor is it contended Benson did not employ him to work for appellant. Appellant contends merely that claimant was employed to feed the cattle, not to unload them. Claimant testified Benson instructed him to unload the cattle, get hay, feed them and care for them and attempt to get some buyers.
Benson testified for appellant, that he told claimant to 'look out for the cattle' and 'get hold of some buyers.' As a result of that he unloaded the cattle * * *.' Appellant's auditor testified the cattle were not unloaded for the purpose of sale but because they had been in transit thirty six hours, under which circumstances it was the duty of the railroad company to unload them, and that he paid claimant for his services without knowledge claimant had done this. The record indicates the auditor was at appellant's offices in Dixon, Illinois, at the time in question and was testifying largely from his recollection of the records in that office.
We need not discuss the evidence in detail. The testimony of claimant alone was ample to support the finding that his injury arose out of and in the course of his employment. At most, the testimony of appellant's witnesses merely created a conflict in the record.
II. Claimant fell from the ladder and coupling of a cattle car. His body struck the edge of a platform and fell to the ground under it. The doctor who treated claimant testified he suffered a fracture of the distal end of the collar bone where it joins the shoulder blade, together with injuries to the soft tissue of the shoulder and two hernias. At the time of the arbitration (nine months later) claimant had an impairment of about 50% in motion of the shoulder which resulted in loss of function of the arm as a whole by probably 25% or 30%. This condition is probably permanent. The doctor testified concerning a recurred hernia on the left side in the inguinal area which had previously been repaired and a new hernia in the epigastrium, above the navel. 'I * * * know that the repair was solid; he feels this jerk falling between the cars, that brought on this one again on the left side.' Claimant testified he was then unable to use the arm or shoulder, to shave, comb his hair or put on a tie and that the hernias still existed.
The Commissioner found claimant 'injured his right shoulder and sustained inernal injuries, among which was the recurring hernia which had formerly been repaired.' His decision recites:
'The medical evidence is undisputed that claimant sustained permanent general disability * * * and such disability is found and determined as a finding of fact to be twenty-five per cent (25%) of general permanent disability to the body as a whole, entitling the claimant to one hundred (100) weeks of compensation at $18.00 per week.'
Appellant contends that where the proofs show a specific injury the award, if...
To continue reading
Request your trial