Gluck Bros., Inc. v. Breeden
Decision Date | 04 March 1965 |
Citation | 387 S.W.2d 825,215 Tenn. 587,19 McCanless 587 |
Parties | , 215 Tenn. 587 GLUCK BROTHERS, INC., Plaintiff in Error, v. Hobert BREEDEN, Defendant in Error. |
Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
W. H. Inman, Taylor & Inman, Morris-town, for plaintiff in error.
James K. Miller, Miller & Noe, Morris-town, for defendant in error.
This is a Workmen's Compensation case. The employee, defendant in error, was found to be totally and permanently disabled as the result of a heart attack, and was awarded benefits accordingly. From the unfavorable holding of the trial judge in the court below, the employer, plaintiff in error has perfected his appeal to this Court.
Two assignments of error are made, viz.:
(1) There is no material evidence to support the judgment of the court; and (2) The petitioner failed to prove the notice required by statute, such lack of notice conclusively prejudicing the defendant's rights.
The facts are that the employee is a totally illiterate man who has worked as a laborer all of his life and has been in the employment of the defendant for approximately twelve years. He worked as a furniture assembler, particularly dressers and chests, and his work required him to lift a ten or twelve pound panel over his head, and to reach over his head with a two or three pound rubber hammer and 'knock it down in them holes.'
On Monday, November 11, 1963, while at work, about 1:30 P.M., he suffered severe chest pains, but continued to work for the remainder of the day. The pains continued throughout the night, but he returned to work the following day. The pains continued and the employee, according to his testimony, kept getting weaker and weaker, whereupon at about 4:30 P.M. he sat down in the rest room. 'I was sick enough to die, it seemed like my breath was cutting off.'
After work he went to his car and 'a bad spell hit me again,' and he fell into the car where he lay for some time before he was able to drive home. The discomfort continued all night and on Wednesday morning he was taken to Dr. James W. Richardson, who placed him in the hospital and treated him for a heart attack.
The plaintiff's wife gave essentially the same testimony concerning the pains and illness of her husband. Additionally, she testified that about two and one-half weeks afterwards she contacted the plant nurse and told her that her husband had suffered a heart attack. She also related an incident wherein Jerry Allen, the foreman at Gluck Brothers, came to bring her husband's last pay check, and she stated that she told him at that time that her husband had suffered a heart attack.
The deposition of Dr. James W. Richardson the attending physician, was then introduced on behalf of the plaintiff. He testified that the plaintiff had suffered a myocardial infarction, and the onset of the attack was somewhere around the time the plaintiff first had the pains.
'Under cross-examination by defense counsel:
(Emphasis supplied).
The first question raised here is whether the evidence supports the holding that Mr. Breeden's heart attack arose out of his employment.
In discussing the causal relationship between employment and heart attacks, this Court said in Coleman v. Coker, 204 Tenn. 310, 321 S.W.2d 540 (1959):
[We are] committed to the proposition of law that an employee who dies in the course of his employment as a result of heart attack, although suffering from a previous heart disease, is covered under the Workmen's Compensation Act even if the result was produced by ordinary exertion and usual strain of the work. (Emphasis supplied).
204 Tenn. at 312-313, 321 S.W.2d at 541.
Mr. Justice Swepston, writing for the Court, in Nashville Pure Milk Co. v Rychen, 204 Tenn. 575, 322 S.W.2d 432 (1958), said:
'Counsel for appellant seems to have pitched his case on the idea that there must have been some unusual occurrence or activity or exertion beyond the scope of the deceased's ordinary employment activities in order for the death to be compensable. We think this is a misapprehension of our cases. The question is succinctly stated in Patterson Transfer Co. v. Lewis, 195 Tenn. 474, 478, 260 S.W.2d 182, 184, as follows:
"If an ordinary exertion or usual strain produces an unusual result is the resulting injury by accident?"
'The answer immediately follows:
"It is now well established that ordinary and usual exertion at work resulting in injuries, is compensable."
The recent case of Ward v. Commercial Ins. Co., 213 Tenn. 100, 372 S.W.2d 292 (1963), approved the above language and stated that those cases resolve the question of law as to whether a death resulting from a heart attack in the course of employment can be compensable as arising out of the employment. The Court further stated:
'These cases and many more also make it clear that in each case there is a question of fact which must be resolved by the trial court, to-wit: whether there actually was a causal connection between the heart attack and the employment.' 213 Tenn. at 110, 372 S.W.2d at 297.
Thus, since the question is basically one of fact, it is necessary that we take note of the scope of review of this Court as concerns the facts found in the court below. It is settled law that we are to review the record only to determine if the trial judge's decision is supported by any material evidence.
In White v. Whiteway Pharmacy, Inc., 210 Tenn. 449, 454, 360 S.W.2d 12, 15 (1962), this Court stated that in a workmen's compensation case:
Our review in the instant case is, therefore, limited to an examination of the record to see if there is any material evidence to support the trial judge's finding that there was a causal connection between Mr. Breeden's employnent and his fatal heart attack. We think that the medical testimony in the record, without a doubt, is material evidence sufficient to uphold the verdict.
In discussing the value of medical testimony and medical opinion, 2 Larsen, Workmen's Compensation § 322 (1961), reads:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Jordan v. City of Murfreesboro
...an employee's superior is given notice of the accident and injury, this constitutes notice to the employer." Gluck Bros. v. Breeden, 215 Tenn. 587, 597, 387 S.W.2d 825, 830 (1965); see also Cleveland-Tennessee Enamel Co. v. Eaton, 517 S.W.2d 10, 12 (Tenn. 1974). Accordingly, we conclude the......
-
Gluck Bros., Inc. v. Pollard
...(1930) 161 Tenn. 470, 33 S.W.2d 90; Ward v. North American Rayon Corp. (1963) 211 Tenn. 535, 366 S.W.2d 134; Gluck Brothers, Inc. v. Breeden (1965) 215 Tenn. 587, 387 S.W.2d 825. (2) Lack of prejudice. Lampley v. St. Paul Mercury Indemnity Co. (1957) 201 Tenn. 458, 300 S.W.2d 876; Aluminum ......
-
Brown v. John Martin Const. Co.
...531 S.W.2d 104 (Tenn.1975), Cleveland-Tennessee Enamel Company v. Eaton, 517 S.W.2d 10 (Tenn.1974), and Gluck Brothers, Inc. v. Breeden, 215 Tenn. 587, 387 S.W.2d 825 (1965) as authority for its position. These cases are not authority for the employer's position, however, as they address th......
-
Williams v. Travelers Ins. Co.
...reviews the record to determine only if the trial judge's findings are supported by any material evidence. Gluck Brothers, Inc. v. Breeden, 215 Tenn. 587, 387 S.W.2d 825 (1965). As pointed out in General Shale Products Corp. v. Casey, 202 Tenn. 219, 303 S.W.2d 736 'The legislature in enacti......