Haill v. Champion Shoe Mach. Co.

• Decision Date: 08 May 1934
• Docket Number: No. 22817.,22817.
• Citation: 71 S.W.2d 146
• Parties: ANNA M. HAILL AND VIOLET HAILL, RESPONDENTS, v. CHAMPION SHOE MACHINERY COMPANY, AND NEW AMSTERDAM CASUALTY COMPANY, APPELLANTS.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

71 S.W.2d 146

ANNA M. HAILL AND VIOLET HAILL, RESPONDENTS, v. CHAMPION SHOE MACHINERY COMPANY, AND NEW AMSTERDAM CASUALTY COMPANY, APPELLANTS.

No. 22817.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

Opinion filed May 8, 1934.

Appeal from the Circuit Court of City of St. Louis. — Hon. James F. Green, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Green, Henry & Remmers for appellants.

(1) An employee forfeits the benefits of the Workmen's Compensation Commission Act when he unreasonably refuses to accept medical aid. Sec. 3311, R.S. Mo. 1929; Ritchie v. Bayville Coal Co., 33 S.W. (2d) 154; Hughes v. Elliott, 35 S.W. (2d) 387; American, etc., Co. v. Ind. Com., 10 Pac. (2d) 918; Kreschenovich v. Am. Car & F. Co., 192 Mich. 687. (2) Where there is no substantial competent evidence before the commission upon which to base its award, this court may reverse the award of the commission. Sec. 3342, R.S. Mo. 1929; Waring v. Metropolitan Ins. Co., 39 S.W. (2d) 418; Kenser v. ElyWalker Co., 48 S.W. 167; Broco v. May Co., 22 S.W. (2d) 832.

Bartley & Mayfield for respondents.

(1) The ruling of the compensation commission, and the affirmance thereof by the circuit court, were correct. (a) Under section 3311, Revised Statutes 1929, subsection (a), it was mandatory upon the employer to furnish "such medical, surgical, and hospital treatment, including nursing, ... as may reasonably be required ... to cure and relieve from the effects of the injuries." (b) Subsection (d) of said section provides for nonpayment of compensation, "... if and in so far as the same may be caused, continued, or aggravated, by an unreasonable refusal to submit to any medical or surgical treatment or operation... ." (2) There was no showing of "an unreasonable refusal to submit to any medical or surgical treatment or operation" by the deceased. Payne v. Sullivan County et al., 36 S.W. (2d) 127; Perry v. J.A. Kreis & Sons, 49 S.W. (2d) 220. (3) (a) A finding by the commission against the employer, and in favor of the claimants, was a finding for the claimants on the whole evidence. State ex rel. Buttiger v. Haid et al. (Mo. Sup.), 51 S.W. (2d) 1008; State ex rel. Probst v. Haid et al. (Mo. Sup.), 62 S.W. (2d) 869; Doughton v. Maryland Ref. Co. (Mo. Sup.), 53 S.W. (2d) 236. (b) Such finding of the commission has the force of the verdict of a jury. Payne v. Sullivan County, 36 S.W. (2d) 127; Perry v. J.A. Kreis & Sons et al., 49 S.W. (2d) 220; State ex rel. Probst v. Haid, 62 S.W. (2d) 869. (4) The provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act should receive a liberal construction. Section 3374, R.S. 1929. (a) Where there is a doubt as to the right of compensation, that doubt should be resolved in favor of the employee or his dependents, Keithley v. Stone & Webster, 49 S.W. (2d) 296.

SUTTON, C.

This is an action to recover compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Plaintiff Anna M. Haill is the widow of Anthony P. Haill, and plaintiff Violet Haill is his daughter. Anthony P. Haill, while in the employ of defendant Champion Shoe Machinery Company, met with an accident, which resulted in his death. The Champion Shoe Machinery Company was insured against liability, under the Workmen's Compensation Act, by defendant New Amsterdam Casualty Company. The hearing before the Workmen's Compensation Commission resulted in an award in favor of plaintiffs, from which defendants appealed to the circuit court. From the judgment of the circuit court, affirming the award of the commission, defendants have appealed to this court.

The defendants insist here that the court erred in not setting aside the award of the commission for the unreasonable refusal of the employee to submit to medical treatment.

The accident, which resulted in the death of the employee, occurred at the employer's plant in the City of St. Louis, on December 23, 1931.

Mrs. Haill testified that when her husband came home on the day of the accident, his right hand was bandaged; that she unbandaged his hand, and found a wound between the ring finger and small finger; that he said that he turned on a light and stumbled over a scrap of iron and fell on a file, the file running into the web of his hand; that he had been given first aid at the plant; that she bathed his hand in hot water in which she had put some sort of antiseptic; that she bathed his hand every evening when he came home until January 2, 1932; that the hand was looking fine and showing improvement, and was healed from the outside; that there was no swelling up to January 2nd; that she noticed no marks or streaks on his hand or arm, and that he made no complaint of pain; that on January 2nd, when he came home, his hand had swollen, and he went to Dr. Schmiemeier; that on January 4th, a fever set in, and he was taken to Alexian Brothers Hospital, where he was examined and treated by Dr. Carroll Smith; and that on January 7th he died.

Dr. H.A. Schmiemeier testified, for plaintiffs, that he examined Haill on January 2, 1932, and found a punctured pussy wound on the right hand between the fourth and fifth fingers on the palmar surface; that it was an angry looking wound; that he cleaned the wound and put on an antiseptic pack; that he went to see him and treated him at his home on January 4th, and saw him the next morning at Alexian Brothers Hospital, and referred the case to Dr. Carroll Smith because of an infection which was becoming general; that Haill died from septicaemia; that a man receiving an injury such as Haill received should have a doctor's care from the beginning; that doctors are always dreading septicaemia from such injuries; that Haill may have had the most competent medical attention and still have developed septicaemia; that when he first saw him there was no evidence of septicaemia.

Dr. Carroll Smith testified, for defendants, that he examined Haill at the Alexian Brothers Hospital on January 5, 1932; that he had a temperature of 99.4, a wound on his right hand, no enlarged glands, and some redness of the arm around the armpit; that he died from septicaemia on January 7th; that the only cause he could find for the septicaemia was the injury to his right hand; that septicaemia often comes from pin punctures; that it was unfortunate that this man did not have medical treatment in the beginning; that such a case should be treated by a man who knows how to treat it; that he would not say that had he treated this man the result would have been different, but he would say that if he had been given competent medical treatment in the beginning the chances of septicaemia would have been much minimized and probably would not have occurred, although it was speculative; that where he had treated such cases under proper conditions immediately following the injury he did not recall any bad result; that with the best of care bad results sometimes happen.

John Lateok testified, for defendants, as follows: "I do clerical work at the Champion Shoe Machinery Company, and was working there in December, 1931, and had charge of the first-aid station. I treated Haill on the day of his injury. There was a brown looking hole in the right hand between the third and fourth fingers. It appeared to be a half inch deep, possibly more. I told Haill to go to a doctor as I was bandaging his hand. As first-aid treatment I applied oil of salt and washed the wound thoroughly and put on an alum compound and bound it up. I had no medical experience except first aid which I had been doing for two years. Haill was told that day, and the next day, and the third day, each time he came in for medical attention, he was to go to a doctor, that the best thing for him to do was to go to a doctor. He said he thought it was not necessary, and did not see any reason for losing time, and he wanted to go along a day or two longer. The hand looked all right and it seemed as if it was going to heal up. I treated this man the first day, and continued to treat him after that. I used oil of salt to wash out the wound until it stopped bleeding. The wound looked jagged straight down in between the fingers. I asked him, `How did you do this?' and he explained, and I said, `It looks kind of bad. I don't know how deep it is. I think I ought to send you to a doctor.' I said, `You go to a doctor.' I did not send him to any doctor because he refused to go. I repeatedly told him to go to a doctor, on the following day and the third day. I told him it was a bad wound, he should go to a doctor. I insisted he should go to a doctor. I did not tell him what doctor to go to. I treated his hand every day from December 23rd to January 1st. The hand showed improvement. I did not notice any swelling of the hand. His hand seemed to be getting well, and after I saw it was getting well, I did not insist upon his going to a doctor. The hand looked like it was...