Bale Chevrolet Co. v. Armstrong
| Decision Date | 19 December 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 5--4075,5--4075 |
| Citation | 241 Ark. 705,409 S.W.2d 328 |
| Parties | BALE CHEVROLET COMPANY et al., Appellants, v. Louie ARMSTRONG, Appellee. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Barber, Henry, Thurman, McCaskill & Amsler, Little Rock, for appellants.
Cockrill, Laser, McGehee, Sharp & Boswell, McMath, Leatherman, Woods & Youngdahl and Silas H. Brewer, Jr., Little Rock, for appellee.
This is another in a series of recent workmen's compensation cases involving heart attacks. Here the commission's award of compensation was approved by the circuit court. The principal question on appeal is whether there is any substantial evidence to support the commission's finding that the connection between the claimant's work and his heart attack was causal rather than casual.
Armstrong was a used-car salesman. While he was at work on July 29, 1964, he suffered a heart attack. After a period of hospitalization and bed rest he was able, by late November, to resume work for a few hours a day. Though remaining under a doctor's care Armstrong continued to increase his workday until his employer discharged him on January 14, for asserted misconduct. The next day his doctor found, during a regularly scheduled visit, that Armstrong's condition was decidedly worse. Total disability unquestionably existed when the case was heard a few months later by the referee.
Both the doctors who actually treated Armstrong were of the opinion that his work contributed to the heart attack. Their case histories showed that for two days before the attack occurred Armstrong had suffered chest pains which they considered to be indicative of the onset of the attack. It was their conclusion that his continuing at work during those two days contributed to the myocardial infarction that occurred. The appellants' medical witnesses, who did not treat the patient, were of the opposite opinion.
On the face of it, the testimony of the claimant's attending physicians is substantial proof supporting the award. Rebsamen West Inc. v. Bailey, 239 Ark. 1100, 396 S.W.2d 822 (1965). The appellants insist, however, that the doctors' opinions rest entirely upon the case history of earlier chest pains and that the accuracy of that case history (obtained, of course, from the patient) is completely destroyed by this excerpt from the early part of Armstrong's direct examination:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Clark v. Peabody Testing Service
...253 Ark. 1100, 490 S.W.2d 792. On appeal, we resolve all doubts in favor of the commission's findings. 1 Bale Chevrolet Co. v. Armstrong, 241 Ark. 705, 409 S.W.2d 328. We must affirm if we find any substantial evidence to support the commission's ruling. Dura Craft Boats v. Daugherty, 253 A......
-
Green v. Jacuzzi Bros., CA
...the employer. On appeal the courts are required to resolve all doubts in favor of the commission's findings. Bale Chevrolet Company v. Armstrong, 241 Ark. 705, 409 S.W.2d 328 (1966). We must affirm if we find any substantial evidence to support the commission's ruling. Clark v. Peabody Test......