Carter Oil Company v. Gibson

• Decision Date: 08 December 1925
• Docket Number: 1326
• Citation: 34 Wyo. 53,241 P. 219
• Parties: CARTER OIL COMPANY v. GIBSON [*]
• Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

241 P. 219

34 Wyo. 53

CARTER OIL COMPANY v. GIBSON ^[*]

No. 1326

Supreme Court of Wyoming

December 8, 1925

ERROR to District Court, Natrona County; BRYANT S. CROMER, Judge.

Action by William M. Gibson under the Workmen's Compensation Law upon a claim of permanent total disability against the Carter Oil Company, employer. Judgment for claimant and defendant brings error.

Affirmed.

Nichols & Stirrett for plaintiff in error.

The burden of proof is upon the workmen to establish permanent total disability resulting from the accident; Inter Harvester Co. vs. Com. (Wis.) 147 N.W. 53; Spring Canon Coal Co. vs. Industrial Co. (Utah) 201 P. 173; Hills vs. Blair (Mich.) 148 N.W. 244; in re Sponatski (Mass) 108 N.E. 466; inferences may not be built upon inference; Ginsburg vs. Co. (Mich.) 170 N.W. 15.

Robert R. Rose for defendant in error.

The evidence clearly established permanent total disability resulting from the accident; where there is substantial evidence to support the findings of the trial court, it will not be disturbed; Standard Oil Co. of Ind. vs. Sullivan (Wyo.) 237 P. 253; the evidence in the present case upon which the findings of the trial court were made was of a substantial character, and the order of award should be sustained.

BLUME Justice. POTTER, C. J. , and KIMBALL, J., concur.

OPINION

BLUME, Justice.

The District Court rendered judgment herein, making an allowance to William M. Gibson under the Workmen's Compensation Act for permanent total-disability, and his employer, the Carter Oil Company, has brought proceedings in error in this court, alleging, in substance, that the judgment is not supported by the evidence, contending that the allowance should have been for temporary total disability, rather than for permanent total-disability.

William M. Gibson, hereinafter referred to as the workman, is forty-eight years old. The evidence shows that prior to the time of his injury he was a man in good health. On July 28 1924, while in the employ of the Carter Oil Company and while engaged in laying an eight inch pipe line, the "back-up tongs," that is to say, the tongs used in holding the pipe in place, slipped, catching the third finger of his right hand, crushing it, so that about five days later it became necessary to amputate it. An injury to one of the feet also resulted as part of the accident, though the main injury was that to the finger. Shortly subsequent to the amputation, an infection set in, spreading through the hand, and partially, at least, affecting the wrist, although the wound to the finger seems to have been fairly well healed over within a comparatively short time after the amputation. On September 28, 1924, the workman came under the charge of Doctor Morad, who testified that at that time Gibson showed some signs of nervousness, although the infection had cleared up considerably by that time and that the tissues looked healthy. In the latter part of November, 1924, the workman performed some labor, for three days, driving a team for grading contractors. Aside from that he has not performed any work since the date of the accident. In December, 1924, Doctor Morad advised his patient to visit with his folks in the East, partially at least for the purpose of obtaining relief, if possible, from his nervous condition. The workman, accordingly, went to Illinois about the middle of December and came back a month later in no better condition than when he had left. Doctor Morad then informed his patient that he was unable to give him further relief and advised him to consult Doctor Johnson, of Casper. This was done, and the workman came under that doctor's charge about January 17, 1925, and remained in his charge up to the time of the trial. Doctor Johnson testified that on January 17, 1925, he made an examination of the workman, which showed him to be afflicted with neurosis; that there was a general tremor of the body; that the muscles were soft and flabby; that the general appearance was one of following a profound shock or concussion; that the eyes were bad and bloodshot; that the tongue was furred and coated; that the heart action was rapid and the reflexes exaggerated; that the workman complained of tenderness over the right arm; that the hand was swollen; that there was swelling on the right side of the spine in the lower dorsal region and upper lumbar region and on the left side of the spine in the lumbar region; that the blood pressure was high; the skin dry, hard and inclined to be scaly. He further testified that the patient gradually declined in health; that his neurosis was of extreme character, and similar to paralysis agitans; that this condition was due to the injury, the shock therefrom and the infection subsequent thereto; that it was absolutely permanent; that the workman would not recover and would never be able to work at a gainful occupation. Several months prior to the trial herein, this witness wrote to the chief physician of the plaintiff in error, in making a report of the workman's condition: "I am of opinion that this man will never recover but I think the danger of his dying is remote. I do not believe he will ever be able to hold a position with a company as long as he lives. I think about the extent of his ability to work in the future would be to help around a little with errands in and about the house and perhaps a little on the farm." Similar evidence as to the permanency of the disability of the workman and as to the cause of his condition was given by Doctor Kimball. The workman was a witness in the case and the trial court accordingly had the advantage of observing his condition at that time. Judging from the expressions in the record, the workman manifested an extreme affliction of neurosis while on the witness stand, and several witnesses, evidently disinterested, testified that his condition for a number of months prior to the time of the trial was very similar to that shown by him in the court room. The workman himself testified that he had no appetite; that he almost constantly had severe pains; that he frequently was unable to turn over while in bed; that much of the time he was not able to be up; that he was extremely nervous, which condition commenced about October, 1924; that he was unable to do any work and could, generally, not even go down town unless accompanied by some one. These facts were corroborated by his wife and by other testimony. Even Doctor Cotton, a witness for the plaintiff in error, while stating it as his opinion that the workman's condition was not permanent, admitted that he was then disabled to the extent of 75 per cent; that if his pains, manifested by him while on the witness stand, were real, he would be unable to perform any work; that neurosis logically followed the injury of the workman and the shock therefrom and the subsequent infection; and that the probability of improvement in the workman's condition...