Black v. Alabama Dry Dock & Shipbuilding Co.

• Decision Date: 15 May 1947
• Docket Number: 1 Div. 284.
• Citation: 30 So.2d 456,249 Ala. 209
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court
• Parties: BLACK v. ALABAMA DRY DOCK & SHIPBUILDING CO.

30 So.2d 456

249 Ala. 209

BLACK v. ALABAMA DRY DOCK & SHIPBUILDING CO.

1 Div. 284.

Supreme Court of Alabama

May 15, 1947

H C. Rankin, of Brewton, for appellant.

Armbrecht, Inge, Twitty & Jackson, of Mobile for appellee.

LAWSON Justice.

This is a suit based on a claim for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Law. Chapter 5, Title 26, Code of 1940.

The plaintiff, J. I. Black, claimed that on July 17, 1943, he was employed by the defendant company, Alabama Dry Dock and Shipbuilding Company, as a mechanic's helper; that on said date and while he was engaged in the performance of his duties, a gasoline torch exploded causing the plaintiff to suffer the following described injuries: (1) a permanent partial disability to his hearing; (2) a permanent partial disability to his eyesight; (3) his nervous and circulatory systems were severely shocked and injured and his general health permanently impaired.

Plaintiff seeks a review by this court of a judgment of the circuit court of Mobile County denying him compensation although that court found that plaintiff was employed as alleged and that while so employed he was injured as a result of an explosion of a gasoline torch on July 17, 1943.

The trial court's action in denying compensation to plaintiff appears to have been predicated on the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:

(1) That the only injury and disability suffered by plaintiff as a result of the explosion was a permanent partial disability to his hearing, namely, the 50 per cent loss of hearing in one ear.

(2) That since there is no schedule in the Workmen's Compensation Law which specifically covers a permanent partial disability to an ear, compensation for such disability must be determined in accordance with the provisions of subsection (C) 6 of § 279, Title 26, Code of 1940, which provides: 'In all other cases of permanent partial disability not above enumerated, the compensation shall be fifty-five percent of the difference between the average weekly earnings of the workman at the time of the injury and the average weekly earnings he is able to earn in his partially disabled condition subject to the same maximum as stated in subsection (A).'

(3) That plaintiff did not sustain any loss of 'earning power' as a result of the accident. This finding appears to have been based to some extent on the further findings that the 'injury to his hearing in his left ear did not interfere with the performance of his usual occupation'; 'that without losing time from his work on account of such injury, plaintiff voluntarily left his employment with the defendant and returned to his former home near Brewton, Alabama; that on December 28, 1944, plaintiff went to work for Waterman Steamship Corporation as a mechanic's helper performing the same duties he performed in the plant of the defendant and drawing the prevailing rate of pay for a mechanic's helper.'

If the only disability which plaintiff suffered was a 50 per cent loss of hearing in one ear, it is settled that his right to compensation must be determined by the application of subsection (C) 6, § 279, Title 26, supra. There is no specific schedule covering a permanent partial disability of that nature. Alabama By-Products Co. v. Landgraff, Ala.Sup., 27 So.2d 215; Malbis Bakery Co., Inc., v. Collins, 245 Ala. 84, 15 So.2d 705; Daniels Const. Co. v. Phillips, 241 Ala. 537, 3 So.2d 304.

It is also well established that compensation cannot be awarded in cases where subsection (C) 6, § 279, Title 26, supra, is operative unless the workman suffered a loss of ability to earn. Alabama By-Products Co. v. Landgraff, supra.

We do not understand that the plaintiff is here complaining of the trial court's conclusions of law but he does contend that the lower court erred in his findings of fact in the following respects: first, in finding that the only injury and disability sustained by the plaintiff by reason of the accident was a 50 per cent loss of hearing in his left ear; second, in finding that plaintiff did not sustain any loss of earning power as a result of the accident.

Plaintiff testified as to the injury to his ear. He further stated that his eyesight had been failing ever since the accident; that one eye hurt him 'right smart'; that he was nervous and suffered dizzy spells, which caused him to fall; that he had sharp pains in his jaw and all over his head and that he was not able to do half as much heavy work as he could do prior to the accident. There was other testimony given by non-expert witnesses tending to show that plaintiff had fallen on several occasions and appeared to be nervous.

It seems to be plaintiff's position that there was no evidence which specifically and directly denied that plaintiff received an eye injury and the other injuries above referred to, and that therefore there was no evidence to support the finding of the trial court that the only injury which plaintiff received by reason of the accident was the 50 per cent loss of hearing in one ear.

At the time of the accident plaintiff was approximately 57 years of age. He was treated by a firm of specialists for the injury to his ear. This firm of physicians likewise specialized in the treatment of the human eye. Although plaintiff was treated by them immediately after the accident and a number of times thereafter he never made any complaint about an eye injury or asked that his eyes be examined. He never complained to them of any injury other than to his ear. There was medical testimony offered by the defendant from which the trial court could have found that any infirmities...