Bahry v. City Fabrics, Inc.

• Decision Date: 19 June 1953
• Citation: 97 A.2d 589,80 R.I. 411
• Parties: BAHRY v. CITY FABRICS, Inc. Eq. 2152.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

Page 589

97 A.2d 589

80 R.I. 411

BAHRY v. CITY FABRICS, Inc.

Eq. 2152.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

June 19, 1953.

Aram A. Arabian, Providence, for petitioner.

Swan, Keeney & Smith, John B. Dillon and Eugene J. Phillips, Providence, for respondent.

CAPOTOSTO, Justice.

This is an original petition under the workmen's compensation act, general laws 1938, chapter 300, in which the petitioner employee seeks compensation for partial incapacity. The cause is before this court on his appeal from a decree of the superior court denying and dismissing the petition.

The facts are undisputed. Briefly stated they are as follows. The petitioner was employed by respondent as a silk weaver. On January 8, 1951, in turning from one loom to another in the course of his employment, he struck the side of his head below the left eyebrow against an iron post, sustaining a cut in that region which was dressed and bandaged by his 'boss,' after which he resumed his work. Although he testified that he could not see out of that eye immediately and for some time after the accident, he did not go to a doctor before February 21, and he continued to work at his regular employment until February 26, 1951. Thereafter at respondent's request he was examined by a number of doctors, who specialized in diseases of the eyes, either at their respective offices or at certain hospitals. The rest of his testimony was to the effect that he never had any trouble with his eyes before the accident; that only the sight of his left eye was impaired as a result of his mishap; and that at the time of the hearing in the superior court in February 1952 the condition of the eye had improved to the extent that he was able to work 'but not weaving.' The petitioner rested his case without introducing any medical testimony with reference to any causal relation between his injury and the impaired vision of his left eye.

In defense respondent called as witnesses Dr. Lee G. Sannella, petitioner's own physician, Dr. Joseph L. Dowling and Dr. Hugo P. C. Riemer, all three specialists in disease of the eye. Doctor Sannella, who examined petitioner on February 21, testified that the 'scattered hemorrhages in the retina which prevented him from having any sight beyond the ability to count fingers * * * is not the usual finding in a blow to the eye.' In cross-examination he expressed the belief, though not as a positive opinion, that the condition he found might be attributable to some blood disease, such as pernicious anemia or leukemia.

Doctor Dowling examined petitioner on March 13, 1951. The important part of his testimony is as follows: 'There was no evidence of trauma damage to the eye and the retinal hemorrhages were not the kind we see in retinal injury. My opinion was that the retinal hemorrhages were due to a disease of the blood or the blood vessels (due to physical changes). Trauma can and does cause retinal damage and hemorrhages but the picture of the retinal hemorrhages as seen in this case, through the ophthalmoscope, is not a case of injury but of personal physical or vascular disease. I do not believe that the slight abrasion of the left temple on January 8, 1951 has anything to do with the loss of vision in the left eye.'

At the suggestion of Dr. Dowling petitioner was examined in Boston on March 23, 1951 by Dr. Hugo P. C. Riemer, consulting eye...