Farmer v. L.H. Knight Co.

• Decision Date: 07 April 1952
• Docket Number: No. 4-9731,4-9731
• Citation: 248 S.W.2d 111,220 Ark. 333
• Parties: FARMER v. L. H. KNIGHT CO.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Page 111

248 S.W.2d 111

220 Ark. 333

FARMER v. L. H. KNIGHT CO.

No. 4-9731.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

April 7, 1952.

Concurring and Dissenting Opinions April 14, 1952.

Ovid T. Switzer, Crossett, for appellant.

Malcolm W. Gannaway and James B. Gannaway, Little Rock, for appellee.

HOLT, Justice.

Appellant's husband, Dan M. Farmer, a carpenter by trade, 56 years of age, on February 14, 1949 was employed as a carpenter on a high school building in Crossett by L. H. Knight Co., appellee. Farmer had been working on this job for about one week with another carpenter of appellee's, John Midgett, and after having worked for about seven hours on the 14th, a timber 4"' X 10"' X 16', weighing from 125 to 150 pounds, was placed by two helpers on horses, on a scaffold about seven feet from the ground. While lifting one end of this timber about one foot, Farmer suddenly collapsed, fell from the scaffold to the ground and died almost immediately. Midgett and another carpenter, Mr. Horn, were the only witnesses with Farmer when he fell.

Mr. Midgett, who was assisting Farmer and lifting the other end of the timber, testified:

'Q. How high did he have to lift the piece of timber after he got it over the wall? A. Oh! I would say now if it was on the scaffold about two feet, but he had it up to his knees to start with. I would say 10, maybe a foot high; not over that.

'Q. What kind of position was he in? A. Well, he was just standing up like a man would picking up anything.

'Q. Have to bend over to lift it, put it in? A. Yeah? I quess he did have to kinda get down a little.

'Q. You are--saying you are in that position lifting the board of that kind at the place, would you be in a strain? A. No, no, if you didn't go no higher than that you wouldn't. You are right even with your body; waist high about that. * * *

'Q. Now, you are how large, how much do you weigh? A. I weigh 145.

'Q. Was it a very difficult thing for you to handle one end of a four by ten by sixteen? A. No, sir.

'Q. It wasn't heavy work to you? A. No, it wasn't too heavy for me. * * *

'Q. February 14 was on Monday? A. That's right; it was on Monday he went to work there a week--he had been there since Monday.

'Q. And you wouldn't say this was any heavier work than you had done all the week before that? A. No, sir, I wouldn't.

'Q. This was the second Monday? A. Yes, sir.

'Q. That he worked--just one week? A. Yes, sir.

'Q. And you had never heard him complain of either feeling bad or that the work was heavy? A. Never heard him say nothing; no, sir.'

The Commission summarized Mr. Midgett's testimony: 'John Midgett testified he was an employee of L. H. Knight on February 14, 1949, and was working on the job when Mr. Farmer went to work about a week prior to February 14, 1949; that Mr. Farmer died about 3:45 p. m. on February 14, 1949; that prior to his death he had been working with him on a scaffold which was located about seven feet above the ground; that they had saw horses on the scaffold, and the lumber was placed there while holes were being drilled in it with an electric drill; that just before Mr. Farmer died, he (Midgett), Mr. Horn, and Mr. Farmer slid a piece of lumber down off the saw horse, and he and Mr. Farmer then placed the piece of lumber down on the beam where it was to be bolted to the beam; that he then turned around and looked for the helper; that when he looked back Mr. Farmer was falling off the scaffold; that he just rolled off and fell on the ground, landing on his back; that the ground was soft; that he got to him immediately and poured water on his trying to bring him to; that Mr. Farmer had turned black and blue by this time, so he got some more men and laid Mr. Farmer on the floor; that the work Mr. Farmer was doing that day was no more strenuous than what they had been doing all week.'

It appears undisputed that Mr. Farmer had been suffering from hypertension, accelerated heart, other symptoms of a cardiac condition, and a diseased heart as far back as 1947.

Dr. McMillian, on behalf of appellee, testified that in his opinion, Mr. Farmer's death was caused either by massive cerebral hemorrhage or coronary occlusion and that the work he was doing had no bearing or connection with his death.

The full Commission denied appellant's claim for compensation and on appeal to the Ashley Circuit Court, the action of the Commission was affirmed. From the judgment is this appeal.

Appellant contends that there was no substantial evidence on which the Commission could have based the order denying compensation and says: 'The sole question is whether death was due to accidental injuries which arose out of, and in the course of, his employment.'

We have consistently, through a long line of decisions, adhered to the following rules in construing our 'Workmen's Compensation Law.' The findings of facts by the Commission must be accorded the same force and effect as the verdict of a jury. In other words, if there is any competent, substantial evidence to support the Commission's findings, we must affirm. The Law does not call for general accident insurance, Birchett v. Tuf-Nut Garment Manufacturing Company, 205 Ark. 483, 169 S.W.2d 574.

The burden of proof is on the claimant to show that injury or death of the employee was the result of an accidental injury that not only arose in the course of the employment, but in addition, that it grew out of, or resulted from, the employment. An accidental injury may come about by evidence of some unusual strain, effort, or fortuitous happening which might bring about death or injury to the employee either as a direct cause, or by the aggravation of a pre-existing diseased condition from which the employee was suffering at the time of the injury or death. McGregor & Pickett v. Arrington, 206 Ark. 921, 175 S.W.2d 210. See also, Schneider on Workmen's Compensation Text, Vol. 4, Section 1328, page 543, which is quoted in full in Baker v. Slaughter, Ark., 248 S.W.2d 106.

Since the effective date of the initiated Workmen's Compensation Law, December 3, 1948, Initiated Act 4 of 1948, Ark.Stats. § 81-1301 et seq., adopted by the people Nov. 2, 1948, there is no prima facie presumption that the claim comes within the provisions of the law.

The Commission made these findings; 'The testimony of Clifford L. Horn and John Midgett, who were working with the decedent at the time of his collapse, was to the effect that the work being done by the decedent at the time of his collapse was of no more strenuous nature than that which he had been doing for days prior to his collapse. We do not think the evidence discloses any unusual effort or strain or any fortuitous happening that would constitute an accidental injury and which brought about the death of the decedent, either as a direct cause or by the aggravation of the pre-existing diseased condition from which the decedent suffered.'

While the evidence is conflicting, we cannot say that there was no substantial evidence, as a matter of law, to support the Commission's findings, and the judgment of the Circuit Court on appeal. It is not our function to weigh the evidence in these compensation cases. That responsibility had been left to the Commission by the Legislature. Lundell v. Walker, 204 Ark. 871, 165 S.W.2d 600; H. C. Price Construction Company v. Southern, 216 Ark. 113, 224 S.W.2d 358 and Ledbetter v. Adams, 217 Ark. 329, 230 S.W.2d 21.

We recognize that when one is suffering from an admitted pre-existing diseased heart condition, as was the decedent here, death often happens without any intervening trauma or injury, and may come on under ordinary physical activation or even while resting or asleep.

The judgment is affirmed.

McFADDIN and ROBINSON, JJ., concur.

MILLWEE and WARD, JJ., dissent.

McFADDIN, Justice (concurring).

Under our statutes and holdings, this Court should affirm the Commission in the case at bar, since the Commission's findings have the same force and effect as a jury verdict. But the purpose of this concurring opinion is to attempt to clarify some confusion which I think has slipped into some of our workmen's compensation cases, involving the collapse of a worker.

There seems to be an impression that the Workman's Compensation Commission can allow a recovery in the case of a collapsed worker only when there is a strain or burden on the worker, more than the usual work for which he is employed. That impression is entirely erroneous as I see the cases. The confusion seems to result from the failure to distinguish between two groups of cases: (1) In the first group are those cases in which the Commission allowed recovery for a collapsed worker, and we affirmed the Commission; and (2) in the second group are those cases in which the Commission has refused recovery for a collapsed worker, and we reversed the Commission.

In the first group are such cases as McGregor & Pickett v. Arrington, 206 Ark. 921, 175 S.W.2d 210; Harding Glass Co. v. Albertson, 208 Ark. 866, 187 S.W.2d 961; Sturgis Bros. v. Mays, 208 Ark. 1017, 188 S.W.2d 629; Frank Lyon Co. v. Scott, 215 Ark. 274, 220 S.W.2d 128; and Quality Excelsior Coal Co. v. Maestri, 215 Ark. 501, 221 S.W.2d 38. In the second group are such cases as Triebsch v. Athletic, Mining & Smelting Co., 218 Ark. 379, 237 S.W.2d 26; and Scobey v. Southern Lumber Co., 218 Ark. 671, 238 S.W.2d 640, 243 S.W.2d 754.

(1) Now as to the first group of cases: i. e., where the Commission allowed recovery and we affirmed,--a study shows that the Commission allowed recovery in several of these cases, in which the evidence disclosed that the collapsed worker did not have any extra work load or strain greater than the normal work load. It was not work unusual to the vocation that was the key to the recovery; rather it was work greater than the individual workman could stand, which was the key to the recovery.

For example: in Sturgis Bros. v. Mays, supra [208 Ark. 1017, 188 S.W.2d 631], the...