General Motors Corp. v. Freeman
Decision Date | 10 February 1960 |
Citation | 157 A.2d 889,2 Storey 330,52 Del. 330 |
Parties | , 52 Del. 330 GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, a corporation of the State of Delaware, Employer-Appellant, v. Joseph FREEMAN, Claimant-Appellee. |
Court | Delaware Superior Court |
Rodney M. Layton, of Richards, Layton & Finger, Wilmington, for appellant.
James P. D'Angelo, Wilmington, for appellee.
This is an appeal from the Industrial Accident Board of this State pertaining to an award of compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 19 Del.C. § 2101 et seq.
Joseph Freeman, claimant, testified below in substance as follows: that he had not experienced any difficulty with his eyes prior to November 16, 1955, except that his eyes were weak which necessitated the wearing of glasses; that on November 16, 1955, as an employee of General Motors Corporation he was burning trash in the performance of his regular duties at which time he suffered an injury in that smoke impinged upon his eyes causing him to cough and lift his eyeglasses in order to wipe his right eye with his gloved hand and that in the process of wiping his eye a foreign substance entered the eye causing considerable pain and discomfort; that he went to the Corporation's infirmary where a nurse flushed his eye and told him to report back to the doctor the next morning; that he returned to the infirmary the next morning at which time Dr. Weigerink examined his right eye; took therefrom some substance, and placed a black patch over the eye; that the patch so remained for the period of five days; and that when the patch was removed 'it looked like a four-leaf clover in front of me.' 'Looked like some kind of a working sign from the time the patch was taken off.'
Freeman contends that during February 1956 as he was driving to work a black spot appeared in front of his eye; that upon his arrival at the General Motors plant he went to the infirmary to see Dr. Weigerink; and that Dr. Weigerink at that time referred him to Dr. LaMotte, of Wilmington, an ophthalmologist.
Freeman contends that for financial reasons he did not go to be examined by Dr. LaMotte until November 5, 1956; that he did see the doctor on that date and was advised that he had a detached retina in his right eye and immediate surgery was advised; that Dr. LaMotte operated a week later resulting in no beneficial aid to his vision; and that by reason of the detached retina he is now totally blind in his right eye.
It is contended that the occurrence of the incidents that took place on November 16, 1955, was the proximate or a contributing cause of the retinal detachment suffered by him, which was discovered by Dr. LaMotte on November 5, 1956.
General Motors concedes employment but denies the existence of any causal relationship between the series of events detailed by Freeman and the retinal detachment, which is no more than conjecture or a suggestion of possibilities, and urges this Court to reverse the award of compensation as entered by the Industrial Accident Board.
Freeman produced before the Board two medical experts, Dr. Edwin A. Goldberg, an optometrist, and Dr. Bayard R. Vincent, an ophthalmologist.
General Motors likewise produced as its medical experts Dr. W. O. LaMotte, Jr., an ophthalmologist, and Dr. Lloyd T. Weigerink, plant physician for the corporation.
Dr. Goldberg testified that he examined the eyes of Freeman on February 27, 1953, at which time the external examination was negative, an extra-ocular type of thing; that the ophthalmological examination showed high myopia, but the retina was not detached.
Dr. Goldberg was then asked the following hypothetical question:
Dr. Vincent testified that he examined the right eye of the claimant on October 30, 1957, and that his examination revealed a retinal detachment in Freeman's right eye, with a loss of vision to the extent that even light perception was questionable.
He then proceeded to define (a) myopia and (b) retinal detachment:
He was then asked the following hypothetical question:
The doctor further testified that Freeman was highly myopic in the right eye and that fact alone predisposes to retinal detachment. He continued by saying that, aside from other factors in a highly myopic eye, Freeman could have coughed violently, could have sneezed violently, or suffered a contusion which might be a violent rubbing of the eye and cause a retinal detachment.
In cross-examination Dr. Vincent was asked the following questions and gave the following answers:
Dr. LaMotte testified that he examined Freeman on November 5, 1956; that his examination revealed a high degree of myopia in his right eye and the presence of a detached retina; that his findings were negative as to any destruction, irritation or inflammation that could be caused from the entry of any caustic chemical in the eye; that he operated on the eye a week later without appreciable results. The doctor further testified that the process of detachment of the retina generally speaking is spontaneous, one which occurs instantaneously. However, in cases of severe trauma it may occur precipitously, which process is usually a slowly developed one. The doctor's opinion was that the retina in Freeman's right eye had become detached probably six months to a year prior to November 5, 1956, the date of his examination. Since Dr. LaMotte's remaining testimony is in substance the same as Dr. Vincent's, necessity does not require a recitation thereof.
Dr. Weigerink was asked and answered the following questions:
The Court will not reverse a finding of fact by the Board below if there is evidence in the record from which its findings could have been fairly and...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
A. H. Angerstein, Inc. v. Jankowski
... ... presumption or changing the burden of proof, it is for the General Assembly to make the changes ... Let's go back to the ... General ... Motors Corp. v. Freeman, 3 Storey 74, 164 A.2d 686, 689 (1960). The proof, ... ...
-
Falconi v. Coombs & Coombs, Inc.
... ... Falconi agreed to obey Coombs' general rules.27 Falconi had to work on the cars between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. at ... No. 02A-08-009 JRJ (2004); Downes v. Phoenix Steel Corp., Del.Super., C.A. No. 99A-08-006, 1999 WL 458797 (1999)) ... 4. Histed ... Kauffman's Furniture, 706 A.2d 26 (Del.1998). See e.g., General Motors Corp. v. Freeman, 157 A.2d 889, 892 (Del.Super. Ct.1960). C.f., Diamond ... ...
-
Haveg Industries, Inc. v. Humphrey
... ... Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp. v. Mullen, Del.Super., 119 A. 314, 316-17 (1922). The Board, therefore, ... See General Motors Corp. v. Veasey, Del.Supr., 371 A.2d 1074, 1076 (1977), Talmo v ... Webb, Del.Supr., 428 A.2d 11, 13 (1981); GMC v. Freeman, Del.Supr., 157 A.2d 889, 894, aff'd, Del.Supr., 164 A.2d 686, 688-89 ... ...
-
Deshields v. State, C.A. No. 03A-08-004 JTV (DE 6/15/2004)
... ... It relies upon authorities such as General Motors Corp. v. Freeman10 for the principle that the mere fact that a ... ...