Earhart v. Cyclone Fence Co.
| Decision Date | 31 May 1934 |
| Docket Number | 15,196 |
| Citation | 190 N.E. 558,99 Ind.App. 48 |
| Parties | EARHART v. CYCLONE FENCE COMPANY |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
From Industrial Board of Indiana.
Proceedings under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Ray Earhart employee, opposed by Cyclone Fence Company, employer. From an award denying compensation, the employee appealed.
Reversed.
Connor D. Ross, for appellant.
White Wright & Boleman, Knapp, Beye, Allen & Cushing, Joseph L Earlywine, and Paul R. Conaghan, for appellee.
This appeal is predicated upon a final award of the Industrial Board denying appellant compensation for injuries sustained by him, from two accidents, while in the employ of appellee, which injuries aggravated an existing impairment.
It appears that on July 16, 1931, appellee was in good health and was in the employ of appellants and while operating a galvanizing machine stepped to the side of the machine to wash a rod, which was part of the machine. An unguarded set screw, in the collar on the line shaft, caught his overalls near the top of his leg and wound him up in the line shaft. Appellant was unable to extricate himself and he objected to being cut loose because he had some flesh around the shaft that he did not want cut into and he was released only by backing up the machine. Within two hours thereafter appellant showed Mr. Bruce, the superintendent, a bruise on his right groin. That evening his body showed bruises and blood was oozing out where the skin had been broken. At the time of the accident appellant was wearing a truss, which fully retained a small hernia on the right side, caused by a strain occurring in 1929, while appellant was in the employ of appellee, but for which he claimed no compensation and continued working after having purchased a truss. The accident of July, 1931, tore this place so large that a single truss could not retain it and the doctor of appellee prescribed and paid for a double truss for appellant's right side, which truss was no more effective to retain this inguinal hernia than the single truss was. After the accident the machine appellant operated was so adjusted and lowered that appellant could lift the loads with the assistance of his knees.
In October of 1931, while repairing a splice in a driver, appellant slipped and fell. At that time he felt a pain like a bee sting on his left side and told the man in charge that he believed he ruptured himself on the left side and thereafter a hernia on that side developed. Appellant asked Mr. Bruce for an operation but the company would give him no assurance that it would pay the bills and consequently there was no operation. Appellant was then put on the fence gang but he quit work in January of 1933 because his legs and back hurt and he felt bad all over. He thought he had influenza but it developed that he was mistaken.
Appellant now has a small inguinal hernia on the left side and a large inguinal hernia of the right side, which can not be retained; he is unable to work, can not walk any distance and if he does his legs feel tired from his hips down and his back gives him considerable trouble and pain. The evidence also discloses that hernias, such as appellant has, can be caused by strain or trauma.
Appellee's only witness, Dr. Weaver, testified that an operation would probably cure the hernia on the left side but he questioned whether an operation would cure the hernia on the right side because of its long existence. None of the facts above stated were contradicted and all of the evidence was introduced on behalf of appellant, except the evidence of Dr. Weaver, before the single member and the full board heard the arguments of counsel and heard the evidence read and found that appellant was in the employ of the appellee on July 17, 1931, and October 14, 1931, and that on January 6, 1933, he became disabled for work and that appellant's disability was not the result of any accidental injury sustained while in the employ of the appellee.
Appellant appeals, assigning as error that the award of the full board is contrary to law.
We have read all of the evidence contained in the transcript and nowhere do we find any contradiction of the above facts nor do we find any evidence to sustain the finding of the full Industrial Board that appellant's disability was not the result of any accidental injury...
To continue reading
Request your trial