Green v. Lion Oil Company
| Decision Date | 16 May 1949 |
| Docket Number | 4-8880 |
| Citation | 220 S.W.2d 409,215 Ark. 305 |
| Parties | Green v. Lion Oil Company |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Union Circuit Court, Second Division; Tom Marlin, Judge.
Reversed.
W J. Smith, for appellant.
Davis & Allen and H. D. Dickens, for appellee.
OPINION
The Workmen's Compensation Commission found that appellant Glenn A. Green, sustained an accidental injury to his eyes which arose out of and in the course of his employment by appellee, Lion Oil Company, in June, 1947. The commission denied appellant's claim for weekly compensation benefits because he received a salary from the State during the period of disability in excess of what his earnings would have been had he remained in appellee's employ, but ordered payment by appellee of necessary medical expenses incurred by appellant as a result of the injury. Appellee, a self-insurer under the Compensation Act, appealed to the circuit court which reversed and set aside the order of the commission on the ground that there was not sufficient competent evidence in the record to warrant the award for medical expenses. Appellant prosecutes this appeal from the circuit court judgment.
Appellant resigned his position as Publicity Director for the State of Arkansas and entered the employ of appellee as assistant advertising manager on June 15, 1947. At that time he had suffered occasionally for approximately two years from a slight conjunctivitis. A few days after he started working for appellee he received treatment from Dr. Raymond C. Cook of Little Rock and was fitted with glasses to correct the condition.
According to the testimony of appellant, his condition had materially improved on June 26, 1947, when he and a co-worker went to the fertilizer plant operated by appellee at El Dorado, Arkansas, to take some pictures to be used in company advertising. The fertilizer manufactured at the plant is known chemically as ammonium nitrate which is packed and distributed in pellet form in 100 pound sacks. In arranging a sack of the material for photographing, appellant worked with it with his bare hands for a period of two or three hours. It was a hot day and he perspired freely using his handkerchief repeatedly to dry his hands and face. He went directly from the plant to his hotel room where he first became conscious of irritation in his eyes.
His condition grew progressively worse and on July 1, 1947, he again consulted Dr. Cook who found appellant suffering from acute purulent conjunctivitis for which treatment was administered. On July 2, 1947, corneal ulcers had developed and appellant underwent radical treatment for a two weeks period and was totally disabled for five weeks. He was discharged by Dr. Cook on August 5, 1947, with vision of 20-20 in both eyes and pupils back to normal.
Appellant resigned his position with appellee on June 30, 1947, and resumed his former position with the state on July 1, 1947. He received his regular salary from the state during the five weeks period of disability although he was unable to perform his duties during that time. The record does not indicate the exact date appellant filed his claim with the commission, but on July 16, 1947, appellee filed its report of intention to controvert the claim in which it is stated:
The effect of Dr. Cook's testimony is that appellant undoubtedly came in contact with something that resulted in a marked irritation of the eyes between the treatments of June 21 and July 1, 1947. It was his opinion that appellant's exposure to and contact with the ammonium nitrate aggravated the pre-existing subacute conjunctivitis and resulted in formation of the corneal ulcers and temporary total disability for five weeks.
The testimony of Dr. Cook was disputed by that of Dr. M. V. Russell who did not treat appellant, but testified as an expert on behalf of appellee. Dr. Russell stated that while ammonium nitrate would result in eye irritation, he did not believe that enough of the chemical could have been transmitted to appellant's eyes in the manner described to result in ulceration. He also stated that appellant's contact with a large amount of ammonium nitrate would have caused an ulcerated condition within 48 hours, if at all; and that since such condition did not set up until several days thereafter, it was his opinion that some systematic or other condition was the cause of the formation of the ulcers. On this point Dr. Cook stated that the period of the development of the ulcers after exposure would depend on the amount of ammonium nitrate that got into the eyes of one already suffering from subacute conjunctivitis and that if the amount was small and in the form of a fine dust, it would set up an allergic infection which would take a few days for the ulcer to develop.
R. L. Payton, a chemical engineer and assistant supervisor of the nitrate plant, testified that he and other employees at the plant had gotten ammonium nitrate in their eyes on many occasions and that the normal reaction was an immediate stinging senstion which soon subsided. He also stated that if a large quantity of the chemical got in the eyes, it was necessary to wash the eyes to obtain relief, and that the company maintained places over the plant for that purpose. He would not attempt to say what the reaction would be on eyes already diseased.
Dr. M D. Barnes, a research chemist employed by appellee, disagreed with Dr. Cook and other witnesses as to the chemical being an eye irritant. After a learned and extensive explanation of the chemical properties found in ammonium nitrate, he stated that similar properties were used in various eye medicines and that in his opinion appellant's trouble could not have been caused by the chemical. He concluded that a weak solution of the chemical would make a good eyewash and stated that he administered a one percent solution of ammonium nitrate to one of his eyes for three days prior to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nashville Livestock Com'n v. Cox
...pre-existing conditions are compensable. See McGregor & Pickett v. Arrington, 206 Ark. 921, 175 S.W.2d 210 (1943); Green v. Lion Oil Co., 215 Ark. 305, 220 S.W.2d 409 (1949). 1 A. Larson, The Law of Workmens' Compensation, § 12.20 (1985). We see no reason to hold that a person who is disabl......
-
Herman Wilson Lumber Co. v. Hughes
...the Commission and to give the testimony its strongest probative force in favor of the action of the full Commission. Green v. Lion Oil Co., 215 Ark. 305, 220 S.W.2d 409; McCollum v. Rogers, 238 Ark. 499, 382 S.W.2d 892; Burrow Construction Co. v. Langley, supra. The question is not whether......
-
Hamilton v. Kelley-Nelson Const. Co.
...and Pickett v. Arrington, 206 Ark. 921, 175 S.W.2d 210; Harding Glass Co. v. Albertson, 208 Ark. 866, 187 S.W.2d 961; Green v. Lion Oil Co., 215 Ark. 305, 220 S.W.2d 409; Triebsch v. Athletic Mining, 218 Ark. 379, 237 S.W.2d 26; Shanhouse v. Simms, 224 Ark. 86, 272 S.W.2d 68; and Tri-State ......
-
Desoto, Inc. v. Parsons
...of a pre-existing condition, however, there must be a "reasonably clear history" of some injury or occurrence. Green v. Lion Oil Co., 215 Ark. 305, 220 S.W.2d 409 (1949); Tri-State Construction Co. v. Worthen, 224 Ark. 418, 274 S.W.2d 352 (1955). More is required than a doctor's opinion, ba......