Eberle v. Miller, 25684.
| Decision Date | 11 February 1927 |
| Docket Number | No. 25684.,25684. |
| Citation | 170 Minn. 207,212 N.W. 190 |
| Parties | EBERLE v. MILLER et al. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by William Eberle, claimant, opposed by John C. Miller, employer, and the Continental Casualty Company, insurer. To review the findings and an award of a referee, approved and adopted by the Industrial Commission, the employer and insurer bring certiorari. Remanded with directions.
Denegre, McDermott & Stearns, of St. Paul, for relators.
H. W. Goetzinger, of St. Paul, for respondent.
Certiorari upon application of the employer and the insurer to review the findings and award of the referee, approved and adopted by the Industrial Commission on May 4, 1926.
On September 15, 1922, respondent sustained accidental injuries, arising out of and in the course of his employment, in the nature of a fracture of his spine, causing a paralysis of the lower part of his body and resulting in a total permanent disability. The employer and insurer accepted liability for such injuries and paid to the respondent compensation from the date of the injury up to December 2, 1925, in the amount of $3,024, and hospital and medical expense to that time of $4,357.85.
On December 2, 1925, the insurer notified the respondent that, inasmuch as operating treatment and further medical and hospital care would not bring about a cure, it felt that it should be relieved of further medical and hospital expense and accordingly notified him that it would discontinue paying the same. The respondent, on December 7th of the same year, filed his protest against such discontinuance. Thereafter the matter came up for hearing before the referee and, on December 30, 1925, he made findings that the respondent required further medical, surgical, and hospital attention to cure and relieve him from the effects of his injuries and that the employer should resume the furnishing of the same indefinitely. An appeal was taken from the findings and award of the referee to the commission, which, on May 5, 1926, after hearing, affirmed the findings and order.
It is conceded in this case that the respondent's injuries render him practically helpless and unable to control the action of the bowels and urinary organs, requiring the attention of some one almost constantly to care for him. The physician who attended him testified that his disability was permanent, and that there is nothing in the way of medical, surgical, or other treatment that can be done to alleviate, relieve, or improve his present condition.
It is conceded that the obligation rests with relators to furnish medical, surgical, and hospital treatment to the respondent so long as such treatment may tend to improve his physical condition, or to repair or improve the malady with which he is afflicted as the result of his injury.
The Compensation Act in force at the time of the injury is chapter 82, § 19, Laws 1921, which is as follows:
"Such medical, surgical and hospital treatment, including nursing, medicines, medical and surgical supplies, crutches and apparatus, including artificial members, as may reasonably be required at the time of the injury, and during the disability for not exceeding ninety (90) days and not exceeding one hundred ($100.00) dollars in value, to cure and relieve from the effects of the injury, shall be provided by the employer and in case of his inability or refusal seasonably to do so, the employer shall be liable for the reasonable expense incurred by or on behalf of the employé in providing the same; provided, however, that upon request by the employé made during or after said period of ninety (90) days and necessity being shown therefor the Industrial Commission may require the above treatment, articles and supplies for the cure and relief from the effects of such injury for such further time and amount as is just under the facts shown. * * *"
The right to compensation and to medical and hospital treatment, under the Compensation Act, is governed by the law in force at the time of the injury. As bearing upon this proposition, see State ex rel. Carlson v. Dist. Court, 131 Minn. 96, 154 N. W. 661; State ex rel. Globe Indemnity Co. v. Dist. Court, 132 Minn. 249, 250, 156 N. W. 120; Soderstrom v. Curry & Whyte, 143 Minn. 154, 158, 173 N. W. 649; Arnold & Merdock Co. v. Industrial Com., 314 Ill. 251, 145 N. E. 342, 40 A. L. R. 1470.
The...
To continue reading
Request your trial