Fields v. G.M. Brass & Aluminum Foundry Co., 65
Decision Date | 07 January 1952 |
Docket Number | No. 65,65 |
Citation | 332 Mich. 113,50 N.W.2d 738 |
Parties | FIELDS v. G. M. BRASS & ALUMINUM FOUNDRY CO. et al. |
Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
Robert S. Feldman, Benton Harbor, for plaintiff and appellee.
L. J. Carey and George J. Cooper, Detroit, for defendants and appellants.
Before the Entire Bench, except BUTZEL, J.
Plaintiff was awarded workmen's compensation by the commission and the defendants appeal. The only question involved is whether plaintiff suffered a disablement within the meaning of the act. On April 15, 1949, plaintiff while employed by the defendant foundry company became totally disabled from performing the work in which he was engaged, namely, as a bench molder lifting and carrying molds for the defendant brass and aluminum foundry company. The molds weighed from 20 to 300 pounds. He handled from 20 to 40 molds a day and had help only in handling the heavier molds weighing more than 100 pounds.
Plaintiff had slipped and injured his back in 1940 while working for a former employer, was obliged to quit work and was operated on in 1942 for removal of an intervertebral disc between the fourth and fifth lumbar vertebrae of his spine. After the operation he resumed lighter work without any apparent disability. About 3 or 4 years later he again began to do heavy lifting in the foundry of the defendant company and had no trouble with his back for several months until, in 1946, his back started to become painful. The pain increased gradually until April of 1949 when he had to quit working. There was undisputed medical testimony to the effect that the plaintiff's disablement was the result of the removal of the disc between the fourth and fifth lumbar vertebrae of his spine, and that the loss of the cushion between these bones resulted in their being compressed together, causing pain because of his heavy lifting of the molds. In his work it was necessary for plaintiff to bend over, lift the molds and carry them a short distance, resulting in more strain on his back than that which would attend employment in general. He testified:
'
* * *
* * *
'
'
'
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Mack v. Reo Motors, Inc., 35
...Home, 330 Mich. 392, 47 N.W.2d 658; Weaver v. General Motors Corporation, 330 Mich. 404, 47 N.W.2d 665; Fields v. G. M. Brass & Aluminum Foundry Co., 332 Mich. 113, 50 N.W.2d 738; Arnold v. Ogle Construction Co., 333 Mich. 652, 53 N.W.2d We should add to that list those other decisions wher......
-
Coombe v. Penegor
...742; Underwood v. National Motor Castings Division, C., W. & C. Foundry Co., 329 Mich. 273, 45 N.W.2d 286; Fields v. G. M. Brass & Aluminum Foundry Co., 332 Mich. 113, 50 N.W.2d 738; Gibbs v. Motor Wheel Corp., 333 Mich. 617, 53 N.W.2d 573, and Kepsel v. McCready & Sons, 345 Mich. 335, 76 N......
-
Dressler v. Grand Rapids Die Casting Corp.
...found to be occupational diseases. Smith v. Lawrence Baking Co., 370 Mich. 169, 121 N.W.2d 684 (1963); Fields v. G. M. Brass & Aluminum Foundry Co., 332 Mich. 113, 50 N.W.2d 738 (1952); Underwood v. National Motor Castings Division, Campbell, Wyant & Cannon Foundry Co., 329 Mich. 273, 45 N.......
-
Adkins v. Rives Plating Corp.
...supported by the previously quoted testimony of plaintiff himself. Appellants have cited no authority save Fields v. G. M. Brass & Aluminum Foundry Co., 332 Mich. 113, 50 N.W.2d 738, a case where an award of compensation was affirmed, the original injury having rendered the employee in ques......