F. A. Mcdonald Co. v. Indus. Comm'n

• Decision Date: 25 February 1947
• Citation: 26 N.W.2d 165,250 Wis. 134
• Parties: F. A. McDONALD CO. et al. v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

250 Wis. 134

26 N.W.2d 165

F. A. McDONALD CO. et al.

v.INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Feb. 25, 1947.

Appeal from a judgment of the Circuit Court for Dane County; Herman W. Sachtjen, judge.

Affirmed.

This is an action commenced by F. A. McDonald Company and Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company, plaintiffs, against John H. Lawver and Industrial Commission of Wisconsin, defendants, on September 24, 1945, to review an award of the Industrial Commission, ordering plaintiffs to pay the sum of $955.50 to defendant, Lawver, for injuries sustained while in the employ of defendant McDonald Company. Defendants appeal. The material facts will be stated in the opinion. John E. Martin, Atty. Gen., and Mortimer Levitan, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellants.

Sanborn, Lamoreux & Pray, of Ashland, for respondents.

WICKHEM, Justice.

Lawver, employed by McDonald Company to handle logs, suffered a sharp pain in his back on January 24, 1944 while he was trying to roll a log. He notified his foreman of the accident and kept on working until quitting time. He suffered intermittent total disability until June 24, 1944 for which he was paid compensation. In addition, the commission found that he had sustained permanent disability equivalent to 5% of permanent total disability and ordered payment of the compensation. The circuit court set aside the commission's findings and dismissed the application.

The question is as to whether the evidence sustains the finding of permanent disability. There was, of course, evidence by plaintiffs' doctors that there were no objective symptoms of any kind. The commission relied upon a report by Dr. Montgomery. In his report, Dr. Montgomery agreed with the clinical findings of the doctor called by the employer. Under the heading of ‘impressions' at the end of his report, he states that there is no objective evidence of bone or joint disease or injury; that the injury sustained in the accident was limited to certain tears in the lumbosacral area which would be expected to heal in three to eight weeks. He also stated that there were no conditions in the spine or lower extremities to account for Lawver's complaints; that Lawver, however, has a chronic prositis and enlarged and adherent tonsils and that the tonsils and prostate are regarded as probable foci of infection ‘for an infectious fibromyositis of the posterior cervical and lumbar muscles and for an infectious fibrositis of the interspinous ligaments in the cervical and mid dorsal areas. The presence of lymphadenopathy in the right axilla and in the left groin indicates evidence of an active infection. There is limitation in voluntary abduction of the shoulders which is believed to be on an infectious periarthritic basis.’ There are signs of active infection which would account for his symptoms. Dr. Montgomery concludes ‘I believe that Mr. Lawver's complaints would be considerably reduced, if not completely relieved, by a tonsillectomy and prostatic massages. One of the sulfanomides should also be tried. The spetal deviation in the nose is likely causing a partial obstruction in the left nasal passage and may be hindering the drainage from the sinus on that side. The left hydrocele is of no clinical value relative to his complaints. I believe there is no residual disability from the reported lifting incident that occurred on 1/24/44 except for persistence of complaints of pain in the low back. It is reasonable to expect that Mr. Lawver is temporarily totally disabled but I believe his disability is the result of an infectious cause which was not initiated or augmented by the reported accident on 1/24/44. Due to the persistence of complaints in the low back and the absence of any significant previous complaints in this area, an allowance of a 5% total disability as the result of the reported injury on 1/24/44 might be considered to cover any relationship between a probable injury and his present subjective complaints that cannot be differentially identified.’

The first contention of the commission is that the italicized portion of Dr. Montgomery's report sustains its finding of 5% disability. Included in this contention is the claim that the interpretation of medical reports is one of the functions of the commission with which this court does not, and should not interfere, and that for the circuit court to determine the meaning of a medical report is...