Betz v. Columbia Telephone Co.
| Decision Date | 27 January 1930 |
| Docket Number | No. 16592.,16592. |
| Citation | 24 S.W.2d 224 |
| Parties | ED BETZ, RESPONDENT, v. COLUMBIA TELEPHONE COMPANY, APPELLANT. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Boone County. — Hon. D.H. Harris, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
Major & Alexander for respondent.
Dumm & Cook for appellant.
This case originated before the Workmen's Compensation Commission. Respondent filed a claim for the allowance of compensation on account of an injury received by him arising out of and in the course of his employment by the appellant. The claim was filed February 11, 1928, in usual form and shows that the employee was injured "while letting off strain on winch used for pulling in cable when handle slipped out of hands striking him in the mouth." The permanent injury claimed was the loss of thirty-one teeth.
Answer was filed and, among other things, "all of the statements in the claim for compensation are admitted except the following:
The answer was signed by the insurer.
The case was heard before one of the members of the commission in the city of Columbia, and on the 15th day of March, 1928, said commissioner filed with the commission his report of the case containing rulings of law, statement of facts, compensation due, and the award made.
The findings of fact correspond with the claim made; and show that claimant had been permanently injured by the loss of thirty-one teeth, that his average weekly wage was $30, and that claimant was entitled to weekly compensation of $20, and further compensation due as follows:
47½ weeks permanent partial disability
at $20.00 per week .................... $ 950.00
For disfigurement for replacement
of front teeth with artificial teeth 50.00
_________
"Total .............................. $1,000.00
"Paid by employer or insurer, 3
weeks at $20.00 per week .............. 60.00
_________
"Balance due employee to date $ 940.00
The award was made accordingly in favor of the employee and against the employer and insurer, including medical aid in the sum of $152 paid.
Thereafter, on application of appellant, the award was reviewed by the whole commission and on the 21st day of May, 1928, the commission made its final award in favor of the employee and against the employer and insurer as follows:
On appeal to the circuit court of Boone county the case was certified, and heard. The award made by the commission was affirmed. From this judgment the defendant duly appealed.
OPINION.Appellant admits all the facts set out in the claim except the value of the compensation which the employer specifically denies. The points urged on appeal are (1) that under section 17 (a) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, Laws 1927, page 501, compensation is allowable for injuries not specifically listed only where there is a permanent disability resulting in loss of earning capacity; (2) that compensation for disfigurement under the same section is allowable only where the disfigurement results in a handicap to the employee in obtaining employment. There are other variations of the same assignments.
At the hearing before the commissioner the proceeding was brief and informal. The employee appeared in person, and one R.W. Johnson appeared for the employer and for the insurer. It was admitted by Mr. Johnson that the employee had lost thirty-one teeth. The claimant testified to the manner in which he was injured and the loss of his teeth; that he had been compensated for three weeks' time and had not been out any sum for medical cost; that he had been employed by the Columbia Telephone Company for twenty-four or twenty-five years; that he was making about $32.50 per week at the time of the accident and was then making the same amount; that he was away from work three and one-half weeks; and in regard to his ability to work said there was a difference in some ways, "one thing, I had stomach trouble and since I have had my teeth out, I have not been able to get my food to digest;" that he was then doing the same work that he did before the accident; that his teeth were all in good condition before the accident; that the company had not guaranteed to give him a lifetime job; that he had never had any trouble with his gums and that his teeth were in perfect condition before the accident.
The manager for the telephone company testified that claimant was still in the employ of the company; that he was being paid the same wages as before, and when asked whether or not he observed any difference in the performance of the duties of claimant, he said: "I think he is doing a good work." And that he thought claimant appeared to be in the same condition he was before the accident.
Dr. Stephenson, a dentist, was asked this question:
He further testified that it had been his experience that the majority of people after having their teeth extracted are able to pursue their regular duties the same as before. He further said in answer to these questions:
He further testified that dentists would charge all the way from $50 to $500 to replace teeth; that the usual price in Columbia he thought was about $25 a plate; that most plates are made with vulcanite rubber and with porcelain teeth; that there was a very large difference in prices of the metal plates; that in ordinary cases he used vulcanite rubber. The record shows that the claimant had been paid compensation for three weeks disability and that the insurer and the employer paid medical bills to the amount of $152.
In the first point made on appeal, the contest centers upon a construction or interpretation of that part of section 17 (a), Laws of Missouri 1927, page 501, allowing compensation for "permanent injuries" other than the ones specified in the section. Said section 17, as indicated by its title, provides compensation for "permanent partial disability," and "compensation for various injuries," and the method of computation. It is divided into two subsections, (a) and (b). The first part of subsection (a) provides compensation for a definite number of weeks for forty-six specified injuries, and immediately following the specified list is the portion of the section, the meaning and application of which is called in question in this case. It reads as follows:
Appellant contends that no award is permissible for the injury in this case unless it resulted in a loss of earning power, and that the evidence shows that there was no loss of earning power because the employee returned to his former employment at the same wage theretofore received.
The respondent contends that a loss of earning power need not necessarily result in this case to entitle claimant to compensation; that he is entitled to such compensation because he has sustained a permanent injury, which has destroyed a part of the physical structure and functions of his body; that this injury is compensable, regardless of the fact that he re-entered employment at his previous wage; and that the evidence shows he has nevertheless suffered a loss of earning power. The contest rages over this sentence: "Such other injuries shall include permanent injuries causing a loss of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shroyer v. Missouri Livestock Commission Co.
...Comm., 8 S.W.2d 900; Murphy v. St. Louis County Water Co., 54 S.W.2d 69; Woods v. American C. & I. Co., 25 S.W.2d 144; Betz v. Columbia Tel. Co., 24 S.W.2d 224; Bricker v. Gille Mfg. Co., 35 S.W.2d 664; Cotter v. Valentine Coal Co., 14 S.W.2d 660; Cobb v. Standard Accident Ins. Co., 31 S.W.......
-
Ash v. Modern Sand & Gravel Co.
... ... Stone & Webster Eng. Corp., 49 S.W.2d 297; Betz v ... Columbia Tele. Co., 24 S.W.2d 224. (a) The intention of ... the legislature should not be ... ...
-
Schulz v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.
... ... & Co., 44 S.W.2d 264; Schrabauer v ... Schneider Engraving Product, 25 S.W.2d 529; Betz v ... Columbia Tel. Co., 24 S.W.2d 228. (g) The Supreme Court ... of Missouri has not yet ... of the employee. [Betz v. Columbia Telephone" Co., 24 ... S.W.2d 224; Pruitt v. Harker, 328 Mo. 1200, 43 ... S.W.2d l. c. 773.] ... \xC2" ... ...
-
Olson v. Union Pacific Railroad Company
...by the injured employee in obtaining employment." (Sec. 3315 (a), Mo. Laws 1925; 3 Schneider's Workmen's Comp. Stat., p. 1909.) In the Betz case, supra, the court "There is no complaint as to the sufficiency of evidence to support the finding, except that it fails to show a loss of earning ......