Glotfelter Erection Co. v. Smith

• Decision Date: 17 December 1927
• Parties: GLOTFELTER ERECTION CO. v. SMITH.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

300 S.W. 6

GLOTFELTER ERECTION CO. v. SMITH.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

December 17, 1927.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Shelby County; A. B. Pittman, Judge.

Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act between the Glotfelter Erection Company and H. F. Smith. From a decree awarding compensation, the Glotfelter Erection Company appeals. Affirmed, and cause remanded.

Emmett W. Braden and Wilson, Gates & Armstrong, all of Memphis, for appellant.

Floyd Creasy, of Memphis, for appellee.

McKINNEY, J.

In Beech v. Keicher, 154 Tenn. 332, 289 S. W. 520, it was said:

"In these compensation cases great latitude, judgment and discretion is vested in the trial courts, and their decrees will only be reviewed upon question of law. Where there is no evidence to support a finding the question then becomes one of law."

In Sun Coal Co. v. Wilson, 147 Tenn. 118, 245 S. W. 547, the court said:

"The evidence shows that a party so injured can never do efficient work, and that the injury will likely become greater as time passes; that as a result of the injury the earning capacity of the claimant at present has been reduced one-third; that the only cure for hernia is a surgical operation; that it is not a serious operation attended with unusual danger or pain, and can be successfully performed under a local anæsthetic; that such an operation usually restores a man to his former earning capacity; that when handled by a skilled surgeon practically all such operations are successful; that the claimant is physically able to undergo the operation, and an operation was recommended by the several physicians who examined him. * *

"We do not wish to be understood as holding that, under all circumstances, a claimant should submit to an operation when so requested by the employer, but we have not a case here where the operation is serious or dangerous, or where the physicians disagree as to the advisability of an operation."

In Crane Enamelware Co. v. Dotson, 152 Tenn 405, 277 S. W. 903, it was said:

"When the conditions are such as those appearing in Sun Coal Co. v. Wilson, 147 Tenn. 118, 245 S. W. 547, the employee would have to submit to an operation. That is to say, where it appears that an operation is necessary, that he is in condition to undergo same, that it would in all probability be successful, and the company tenders it to him, and offers to defray all expenses, he would have to submit. The court would be very loath to further extend the rule announced in that case."

The physician who attended claimant, Dr. J. J. McCaughan, was introduced by the defendant and testified as follows:

"Mr. Smith was suffering from a depressed fracture of the skull in the right posterior parietal region and a fracture of the right fibula; that there was a laceration on Mr. Smith's head showing that he had received a fall, probably landing on his head, and that in thus falling he had driven a rock into his skull; that...