Anderson v. State Comp. Comm'r, 7574.
| Decision Date | 18 April 1933 |
| Docket Number | No. 7574.,7574. |
| Citation | 169 S.E. 386 |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
| Parties | ANDERSON. v. STATE COMPENSATION COMMISSIONER. |
Rehearing Denied June 5, 1933.
Syllabus by the Court.
A finding of fact made by the state compensation commissioner will not, as a general rule, be set aside if supported by substantial evidence.
Proceedings under the Workmen's Compensation Act by S. O. Anderson, employee. From a decision of the State Compensation Commissioner denying compensation, the employee appeals.
Affirmed.
Lon G. Marks, of Charleston, for appellant.
Homer A. Holt, Atty. Gen., and Kenneth E. Hines, Asst. Atty. Gen., for Compensation Commissioner.
Steptoe & Johnson, J. Hornor Davis, 2d, and Wm. J. Maier, Jr., all of Charleston, for Riggs, Distler & Co., Inc.
Petitioner was denied compensation on the ground that his alleged disability did not result from an injury received in the course of his employment. He seeks a reversal.
On February 16, 1931, while employed by a subscriber to the workmen's compensation fund, petitioner received a sprained back. He was compensated from the fund for the duration of inactivity caused by his injury. He returned to work at the end of March, and suffered no further inconvenience until May 23d, when he sprained his back again at practically the same place as before. Since then, he complains of pain and soreness in the sprained locality.
A summation of the evidence of Dr. J. E. Roberts and Dr. J. E. Rucker, two physicians who testified in petitioner's behalf, is as follows: A simple sprain in a human body, which is free from infection, is usually of no serious or lasting consequence. Arthritis is a rheumatic infection which involves the joints. If there is a focal infection somewhere in the body, arthritis frequently "flares up" in an injured joint. A sprain does not cause a focal infection. An external examination of petitioner disclosed nothing abnormal except apparent tenderness over the place of injury. Dr. Roberts was of opinion that the petitioner has arthritis. Dr. Rucker merely thought it probable that petitioner has an arthritic condition where the sprain occurred. Both physicians were of opinion that if he has arthritis it was due to a prior infection somewhere in his body and was secondary to the sprain. Dr. Rucker stated that while arthritic disability may be suspected in this instance, it could be determined positively only from X-ray examination.
The petitioner was referred to Dr. A. C. Lambert for...
To continue reading
Request your trial