Egeberg v. Maryland Steel Products Co.

• Citation: 58 A.2d 684,190 Md. 374
• Decision Date: 22 April 1948
• Docket Number: 131.
• Parties: EGEBERG v. MARYLAND STEEL PRODUCTS CO. et al.
• Court: Court of Appeals of Maryland

58 A.2d 684

190 Md. 374

EGEBERG v. MARYLAND STEEL PRODUCTS CO. et al.

No. 131.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

April 22, 1948

Appeal from Superior Court of Baltimore City; Emory H. Niles, Judge.

Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Joseph D Egeberg, Sr., claimant, opposed by Maryland Steel Products Company, employer, and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company insurance carrier, consolidated with claim against another employer for injuries resulting from an earlier accident. From a judgment affirming a decision of the State Industrial Accident Commission dismissing his claim against named employer and insurance carrier, claimant appeals.

Judgment affirmed.

Paul Berman, of Baltimore (Sigmund Levin, S. Harry Herman and Theodore B. Berman, all of Baltimore, on the brief), for appellant.

Talbot W. Banks and Thomas G. Andrew, both of Baltimore, for appellees.

Before MARBURY, C.J., DELAPLAINE, COLLINS, GRASON, HENDERSON and MARKELL, JJ.

GRASON Judge.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Baltimore City affirming the ruling of the State Industrial Accident Commission. The facts in this case differ from the usual industrial accident case, in that we have to consider not only the accident tht gave rise to this case and this appeal but also an accident prior thereto experienced by the appellant.

On January 18, 1944, the appellant sustained an injury to his back while working for the Consolidated Engineering and Shipbuilding Company. On October 4, 1945, he sustained an injury to his back while in the course of his employment with the Maryland Steel Products Company. Claims were filed with the Commission for injuries resulting from the first and second accidents, which were consolidated and heard together by the Commission. The Commission ruled that the evidence before it showed that the claimant suffered a permanent partial disability from the first accident, and that he suffered no permanent injury of any character as a result of the second accident. The Commission dismissed his claim for compensation as a result of the second accident. It was from this action of the Commission that an appeal was taken to the Superior Court of Baltimore City, and from the action of that court in sustaining the Commission, that the appeal to this court was entered.

The evidence shows that the appellant, on January 18, 1944, suffered an injury to his back while in the course of his employment with the Consolidated Engineering and Shipbuilding Company. On January 21, 1944, he went to see Dr. J. G. Miller. He was complaining of a painful back. The doctor immobilized his back with adhesive, prescribed a sedative, and saw him in his office on the 24th, 26th and 29th of January, 1944. He did not see him aftr that and thought that he had recovered, because he did not return to him after that date.

After his injury on October 4, 1945, while working for the Maryland Steel Products Company, he was attended by Dr. C. A. Reifschneider, who first saw him on the day of the accident. Dr. Reifschneider had an X-ray taken of the appellant's back by Dr. Walton. On November 10, 1945, the appellant was examined by Dr. Voshell, and a report of his finding is in the record. On the same day the appellant was X-rayed by Dr. Ashbury, and a report of Dr. Ashbury's finding is in the record.

Without detailing the evidence before the Commission, it is sufficient to say that there was testimony before it to support the following: That the appellant is deformed in certain of his vertebrae in the lumbar region, which condition is congenital; that this condition was accentuated by the injury which he suffered on January 18, 1944; that he suffered some temporary disability as a result of the second accident on October 4, 1945, for which he was compensated, but that there was a recovery from the second injury, to such an extent that there was no disability, either permanent or partial, resulting therefrom. There was, therefore, evidence before the Commission to support its finding in this case.

In the lower court the appellant submitted the following issue: 'Did the Claimant sustain a permanent partial disability to his back as a result of the accidental injury sustained by him on or about October 4, 1945, arising out of and in the course of his employment by Maryland Steel Products Company?' This issue was refused. The court ruled that there was no error of law on the part of the Commission, and that its ruling on the facts was not arbitrary.

The appellant contends that the question of whether the appellant suffered permanent partial disability resulting from his accidental injury on October 4, 1945, is a question of fact triable by a jury. We have ruled in a number of recent cases that where a claim falls under subsection (3) of Section 48, Article 101, 1943 supplement of the code, captioned 'Other Cases', as this claim ...