Hager v. State Compensation Com'r
| Decision Date | 17 January 1933 |
| Docket Number | 7423. |
| Parties | HAGER v. STATE COMPENSATION COMMISSIONER et al. |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
Submitted January 11, 1933.
Syllabus by the Court.
Where facts regarding compensation claim are not sufficiently developed, Supreme Court of Appeals will recommit case to compensation commissioner for further development.
"Where the facts concerning a claim for compensation, arising under the Workmen's Compensation Act, are not sufficiently developed by evidence to enable the commissioner or the court to arrive at the real merits of the claim, an order may be entered here recommitting the case to the commissioner for further development." Holland v. Commissioner (W Va.) 165 S.E. 675.
Appeal from Order of State Compensation Commissioner.
Proceedings by Robert Hager, employee under the Workmen's Compensation Act. From an order of the State Compensation Commissioner denying compensation, the employee appeals.
Reversed and remanded, with directions.
Chauncey Browning, of Logan, for appellant.
H. B Lee, Atty. Gen., and R. Dennis Steed, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondents.
Robert Hager applied for compensation for an injury which he described as follows: "Growth near base of thumb causing thumb to pull down in palmer surface." The commissioner denied the claim, and Hager appealed.
The claimant was a motorman. He quit work because of an attack of acute ileo-colitis on August 27, 1931. A growth was removed surgically, from the palm of his hand on September 28th. He returned to work on November 7, 1931. He testified that while at work on June 27, 1931, he bruised the palm of his hand near the base of his thumb; that the bruised place remained sore, and after four or five weeks he noticed "a growth taking place" in his hand; that his thumb "started drawing something like five or six weeks after June and drawed along continuously up until it was operated on"; and that it has remained crooked and stiff ever since --not being relieved of that condition by the removal of the callous. The growth was described by the operating surgeon as "a hard lump" about the size of the end of the claimant's thumb, and was attributed to continual bruising over a considerable period of time. Hager returned home the same day the callous was removed. His surgeon said "In my opinion this operation would not cause any disability except the time lost as a result...
To continue reading
Request your trial