Am. Furniture Co v. Graves

• Decision Date: 15 January 1925
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court
• Parties: AMERICAN FURNITURE CO. v. GRAVES et al.

126 S.E. 213

AMERICAN FURNITURE CO.

v.GRAVES et al.

Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia.

Jan. 15, 1925.

Appeal from Industrial Commission of Virginia.

Proceedings under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Mandy J. Graves, for death of her husband, Patrick J. Graves, opposed by the American Furniture Company, employer. From an award of the Industrial Commission in favor of claimant, the employer appeals. Affirmed.

This is an appeal from an award of the Industrial Commission, under the Workmen's Compensation Law (Acts 1918, c. 400), against the employer, the American Furniture Company, in favor of the claimant, Mandy J. Graves, of compensation for the death of her deceased husband, Patrick J. Graves, the employee, who received the injury in question.

It was shown before the Commission by the testimony of the attending physician that the death of the deceased was due to blood poisoning which developed from an abrasion on a finger of the deceased "about the size of a dime, " the cause of which abrasion was unknown to the physician.

The statements of the testimony before and the findings of fact of the Commission (some of the latter being found in its statements under the heading "Conclusions of Law"), on the question of fact of whether the abrasion was caused by an accident arising out of and in the course of the employ ment of the deceased, so far as material to be stated, are as follows:

"Findings of Fact.

*******

"The deceased died on February 2, 1924. The question involved is whether or not his death was due to an accident arising out of

and in the course of his employment.

*******

"The claimant widow testified that her husband died on a Saturday, which was, as stated above, February 2d of this year; that on the Monday morning preceding his death he left home for his work, and made no mention of any illness or injury of any sort, and was apparently in good health, and that he had made no complaint previous to this time of this character; that he came home for lunch in the middle of the day, and at that time had his hand wrapped up, and stated that he had hurt it; that she bathed it, but did not take off the bandage; that he returned to work in the afternoon and worked until 6 o'clock, when he came home and lay down and ate no supper, again stating that he had hurt his hand; that Tuesday morning, the following day, he said that his arm hurt to the shoulder, but that he was going to work; that he went to work and remained all day, returning about 8:30 p. m., and that he did no work following this whatever. The claimant further stated that she did not see the hand until it was unwrapped by the doctor on Wednesday morning; that even then she paid no particular attention to it, as she did not think it was serious; that the deceased, however, told her that he had injured one of the fingers of his left hand, which she thought was the middle finger.

"T. W. Lanier testified that he is in charge of the supply room of the employer, and that the deceased was employed as general carpenter about the plant, working part of the time outside, but mostly inside of the plant, and that he was generally in witness' supply room a half dozen times or so a day; that, somewhere about the middle of the week before the death of the deceased, he came into the supply room and asked witness for a rag to wrap his finger up with; that witness asked him what was the matter with it, and he replied that he had struck his finger with a hammer hanging a door; that he had missed a nail he was driving, and struck his finger; that thereupon witness told him that he had better go to the office of Mr. Morgan and get some iodine to put on his finger, and wrap it up, instead of wrapping it up with the rag which he procured from the supply room; that deceased, however, wrapped up his finger with this rag, and witness tied it for him after he had wrapped it up. He was of the impression that it was the index finger or the middle finger which claimant told him he had injured.

"Reeves Richardson, another employee, stated that on the Monday before the deceased died he saw him with his hand wrapped up, and asked him what was the matter with it, and he replied that he had mashed it.

"G. B. Brown, another employee, saw the deceased on Monday about 6 p. m., and noticed that he had his finger tied up, and, upon asking him what was the matter, deceased replied that he had hurt it at work in the office. Thiswitness further stated that, to the best of his recollection, the injured finger was the middle finger of the left hand.

"George Richardson, a neighbor of the deceased, testified that he saw him first on Tuesday night before his death; that he had learned that he was sick, and went to see him; this witness further stated that when he reached the deceased's home he found him in bed with one of his fingers, or his hand, tied up, and that while he was Bitting and talking with him, the deceased attempted to turn himself in bed and struck the injured hand against the bed, whereupon he complained 'mighty bad'; that witness thereupon asked him what was the matter, and he replied that he had struck his hand against the bed, further adding, 'Looks like it will kill me, the pain went clear through me;' that he did not notice whether the hand was inflamed at this time, although it was wrapped up. He was asked this question, 'How hard did he strike it?' to which he replied, 'Didn't seem like he hit it very hard.' Richardson saw the deceased twice more before his death, once about Wednesday night, and again toward the end of the week. He stated that on the occasion of his second visit the hand was badly swollen.

"E. A. Marshall testified that he saw the deceased a few days prior to his death; that he went to work with him Monday and Tuesday morning; that on Monday night the deceased had his hand tied up, and also had it bound up on Tuesday; that on Monday night he asked him what was the matter, and deceased replied that he had hurt it; that on Tuesday deceased told him that he had hurt his hand badly. "For the defendant the following appears: "Dr. W. B. Dudley testified that he was the deceased's attending physician; that he was first called to see him on Wednesday before his death; that at this time he was complaining of aching, and had some temperature; that his diagnosis at that time was influenza; that on Thursday he returned and found him apparently some better, but was called back on Friday, at which time he found his hand much swollen, and on Saturday found that he had septic pneumonia, of which he died about 3 p. m. that day. Dr. Dudley explained that septic pneumonia is a form of blood poisoning, being an infection localized in the lungs. To quote his exact language:

" 'Septic pneumonia is nothing but a form of blood poisoning. In other words, if you should get an injury to your toe and infection sets in, that infection may spread from the toe to the lung.'

"On Thursday, when he called to see deceased, Dr. Dudley testified that he found an abrasion on one of his fingers about the size of a dime; that it had become somewhat infected, and that he cleaned it with alcohol and tied it up; that he could not tell what caused the abrasion, although it might have come from a boil, if the boil had been opened or ruptured; that the deceased gave him, however, no explanation of the cause of it. * * * * * * *

"Dr. Dudley was shown report which he made to the insurance company in reference to the deceased, which contains the following statements:

"In answer to the question, 'What external or visible marks of injury did you find upon the deceased?' he answered, 'Abrasion on second finger of right hand, and arm swollen.' In answer to the question, 'Give full particulars regarding the injuries that caused death, describing their location and extent, ' he replied, 'On the 28th skinned finger slightly, and bruised finger on the 31st against bed, causing hand and arm to inflame. This developed into septicomia, causing death on February 2, 1924.' In answer to the question, 'How do you understand accident occurred?' his reply was, 'The abrasion was caused by striking hand against timber. The bruise was result of striking hand against bed;' and in answer to the question, 'Did the injury, independent of all other causes, produce the death of the deceased?' he replied, 'Yes.'

"As stated, he was shown this report, and in his testimony stated that his answers to the above questions were the same at this time as when he made the report. He further explained his opinion as to the connection between the striking of the hand against the bed by stating: 'Yes, I think that was the cause of the spreading of the infection. It became general as a result of it; it changed from the local condition to the general condition.'

"Dr. Dudley also testified that in his report, required under the Vital Statistics Law, he gave the cause of the death as 'blood poisoning, caused from incipient abrasion of the hand.'

"W. E. Morgan, superintendent of the employer company, testified that some time during the week preceding deceased's stopping work, he came to him and asked if he had anything which was good for a boil; that thereupon he showed him a spot on the middle finger of his left hand which looked like a small rising, or little bump, about an eighth of an inch across the base; that witness painted it with iodine and wrapped it up; that deceased said nothing of an injury at that time. The witness also testified that it is the company's rule that all accidents, even trivial in character, be reported to him. This was the only time he treated the place in question for the deceased.

"R. H. Yarborough, another employee, stated that he saw deceased on the Monday before his death, at which time he showed him the injured finger when they were both reporting for work; that at that time witness had a felon on one of his fingers, and deceased came in and said to him, 'I wish you would take back what you gave me.' I says, ...