Evans v. Indiana University Medical Center
| Decision Date | 28 September 1951 |
| Docket Number | No. 18191,18191 |
| Citation | 100 N.E.2d 828,121 Ind.App. 679 |
| Parties | EVANS v. INDIANA UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Smiley N. Chambers, Indianapolis, for appellant.
Burke G. Slaymaker, William B. Weisell, Slaymaker, Locke & Reynolds, Indianapolis, for appellee.
On the 12th day of February, 1948, the appellant, then employed by the appellee, suffered personal injuries by reason of an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment which resulted in the amputation of his left arm below the elbow. The appellee furnished an paid for all medical and surgical attention and hospital expenses necessitated by said injuries and also compensated the appellant, as contemplated by statute, in the sum of $20.08 per week for 200 weeks for the permanent partial impairment of the man as a whole due to the loss of his arm. The appellant returned to work in November, 1948, and continued in the employ of the appellee until November, 1949, when he became totally disabled through illness diagnosed as tuberculosis of the lungs. A dispute arose between the parties as to the appellee's liability for the appellant's tubercular condition and the appellant thereupon filed application for additional compensation by reason thereof. At the same time he also filed an application for the review of the original award on account of a change in his condition due to the subsequent development of pulmonary tuberculosis. The Industrial Board heard these two applications together and denied relief on both.
Though there is nothing in either of the applications filed by the appellant to indicate that he seeks relief under the Occupational Diseases Act, Burns' Ann.St. § 40-2201 et seq., the evidence and his brief disclose a contention on his part that under all the circumstances of the case his tubercularcondition should be considered an occupational disease. Obviously the board also considered that question to be in the case as it specifically found 'that in the performance of his duties with the defendant the plaintiff was not exposed to nor did he contract an occupational disease.' Not until it filed its answer brief in this court has the appellee sought to confine the consideration of the case to the corners of the pleaded issues and therefore we approach the questions involved with the same liberality in respect to such issues as did the Industrial Board.
It is conceded by both parties that prior to the appellant's accidental injury of February 12, 1948, he was afflicted with a limited pulmonary calcification and fibrosis due to a previous tubercular infection which, on that date, was arrested and latent. As the burden of proving his case was on the appellant and the finding and award of the Industrial Board is against him we cannot reverse unless the evidence is undisputed and of such character as to compel us to conclude that either (1) the appellant's present pulmonary tuberculosis is a proximate result of the injury of February 12, 1948, in that said injury re-activated such disease which theretofore had been latent, or (2) the appellant's pulmonary tuberculosis arose out of his employment and as an incident thereto; that there was a direct causal connection between the conditions under which the appellant worked and his present illness and that such illness followed from such employment as a rational consequence thereof, and hence became compensable as an occupational disease. See Burns' Stat. § 40-2206.
The appellant insists that he is entitled to relief under the first proposition because Dr. J. M. Garland, a medical expert, testified that, in his opinion, that injury to the appellant's left arm on February 12, 1948, and its subsequent amputation, so lowered the appellant's resistance to disease that his dormant tuberculosis was re-activated to the extent that by November, 1948, he became totally and permanently disabled. There is no medical expert opinion to the contrary and as his prior arrested tubercular condition, the injury to and amputation of his left arm and his present active tuberculosis in both lungs, are conceded facts, the appellant contends that the board's finding that 'his present illness was not caused or aggravated by his accidental injury received on the 12th day of February, 1948,' is obviously arbitrary and unjustified and evidences a capricious disregard of the undisputed testimony of a credible witness.
On this phase of the case the causal connection between the appellant's accidental injury on February 12, 1948, and his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Flor v. Holguin, No. 22641.
...disease is incidental to the business and not independent of the relation of the employer and employee." (Evans v. Indiana Univ. Medical Center, 100 N.E.2d 828, 121 Ind.App. [679] 678 The court stated that if the industrial board had found that the claimant contracted tuberculosis during th......
-
Booker v. Duke Medical Center
...medical history. See County of Cook v. Industrial Commission, 54 Ill.2d 79, 295 N.E.2d 465 (1973); Evans v. Indiana University Medical Center, 121 Ind.App. 679, 100 N.E.2d 828 (1951); Peterson v. State, 234 Minn. 81, 47 N.W.2d 760 (1951); Vanore v. Mary Immaculate Hospital, 260 App.Div. 820......
-
Duncan v. George Moser Leather Co., 2-479A112
...Ind.App., 395 N.E.2d 826, 827, is applicable: A claimant bears the burden of proof for his claim. Evans v. Indiana University Medical Center, (1951) 121 Ind.App. 679, 100 N.E.2d 828. A negative award may be sustained by an absence of evidence favorable to the claimant's contentions or by th......
-
Anderson v. Brinkhoff, 92SC271
..."the hazard of aggravation of pre-existing silicotic condition was not an occupational hazard") with Evans v. Indiana Univ. Medical Ctr., 121 Ind.App. 679, 100 N.E.2d 828, 830-31 (1951) (although pulmonary tuberculosis is a disease to which general public is exposed, for claimant who worked......