Hardison, In re
| Citation | 429 P.2d 320 |
| Decision Date | 26 June 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 3596,3596 |
| Parties | In the Matter of the Workmen's Compensation Claim of Dean L. HARDISON, an Employee of Columbus Plumbing & Heating Company. COLUMBUS PLUMBING & HEATING COMPANY, Appellant (Employer below), v. Dean L. HARDISON, Appellee (Employee below). |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming |
Lawrence A. Yonkee, Austin T. Redle, of Redle, Yonkee & Redle, Sheridan, for appellant.
William K. Archibald, Sheridan, for appellee.
Before HARNSBERGER, C. J., and GRAY, McINTYRE, and PARKER, JJ.
Claiming to have sustained an injury resulting in a bilateral inguinal hernia in employment covered by the Workmen's Compensation Law, Dean L. Hardison filed a claim in the court below seeking an award of statutory benefits for temporary total disability. The claim was resisted by the employer, Columbus Plumbing & Heating Company. Following a hearing in the matter the trial court entered an order awarding to claimant the benefits claimed, and the employer appeals. The sole question before us is the sufficiency of the substantial evidence to sustain the award.
There is little if any, dispute in the facts. Claimant was 56 years of age and was employed as a 'plumbing foreman' by the employer for a period of some five months ending on August 3, 1966, when he was 'pulled off the job' by his union. While his work was supervisory, he also engaged in manual installation of plumbing fixtures which entailed lifting. Claimant estimated that the heaviest item handled weighed about 400 pounds, for which he needed help, and probably the maximum weight that he might have 'juggled around by myself' was 200 to 250 pounds. Claimant could not recall any instance of 'specific lifting' or incident on any specific day that might have caused the hernia, and he did not discover the protrusion indicating the hernia until he was drying himself after bathing at home on or about July 20, 1966. He could not 'truly say' that he suffered any 'discomfort' prior to the discovery of the protrusion, his only explanation being that he had 'A vague feeling of insecurity' in the area of the injury which he described as 'a vague feeling of not at all being well.' On cross-examination claimant said it was that feeling, rather than pain, that directed his attention to the protrusion, although he had just previously agreed that he 'just happened to be looking there and saw the condition' when he was drying himself. He reported for work the next day and worked for about two weeks; and while he was careful about 'lifting,' there was no discomfort. While claimant said he remarked to his employer that he believed he had 'ruptured himself,' he did not fix the time and the employer's report filed states that this occurred at the time claimant quit on August 3, 1966.
Dr. Araas, who examined claimant on or about August 4, 1966, testified that he examined the areas of the groin of which claimant complained and discovered the hernia, which he felt was a 'direct' type; that there was no relationship between an older repair and the 'newer injury'; that a movement of the body coupled with lifting can cause such an injury, but he thought the type here 'is directly related to some heavy lifting'; when asked if such an injury was always accompanied by pain, he said that more often than not the injury is not accompanied by pain and a person feels a little tug in the groin 'or they feel a slight pain in the groin at the time they've done the heavy lifting that brought the hernia down,' or they might not notice anything until they get home that evening and are bathing or changing clothes when they notice the lump in the groin; when asked if discovery of the lump could relate back to an injury occurring a week or ten days prior thereto, he answered, On cross-examination he said that there was no apparent 'subcutaneous bleeding' which would indicate the tearing of tissue or the breaking of a blood vessel. In response to a question by the court as to how long it might be after the 'rupture' that a person would be aware of or suffer pain the doctor answered, Surgery was recommended and was performed on August 12, 1966.
In its Order of Award the trial court found that the injury occurred on July 20, 1966, while claimant was working in a covered occupation as a result of 'lifting.' Such general finding implies a finding of all the facts essential to meet the standards of proof laid down by the statute before a claimant is entitled to compensation for hernia.
The pertinent provisions of the statute in question, § 27-84, W.S.1957, are:
'In all cases where a workman shall suffer a hernia, in order to be entitled to compensation he must clearly prove:
'1. That the hernia is of recent origin;
2. That its appearance was accompanied by pain;
3. That it was immediately preceded by some accidental strain suffered in the course of the employment;
4. That it did not exist prior to the date of the alleged injury.'
The special provisions of the law relating to hernia, like the other general provisions, are to be liberally construed in favor of the workman. Industrial Commission v. Pacific Employers Ins. Co., 118 Colo. 496, 197 P.2d 157, 158; Sandoval v. Industrial Commission, 3 Ariz,.app. 449, 415 P.2d 463, 464. Nevertheless, the courts are not free under the guise of construction to extend the beneficent purpose of the law to injuries that do not reasonably fall within the reach of the language used. Furthermore, the rule is not to be related to be evidence offered, Jennings v. C. M. & W. Drilling Company, 77 Wyo. 69, 307 P.2d 122, 126, and does not relieve a claimant of his burden to 'clearly prove' each of the elements that entitle him to compensation. Even as a general proposition, his burden is to show 'the actual time of the compensable injury, its cause,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Olson v. Federal American Partners
...reasonably within the reach of legislative language. Pease v. Pacific Power & Light Company, Wyo.1969, 453 P.2d 887, 888; In re Hardison, Wyo.1967, 429 P.2d 320, 322. As said in the latter case, the rule of liberality is not to be related to the evidence offered. 429 P.2d at 322. It is the ......
-
Jim's Water Service v. Eayrs
...does not relieve the burden, Olson v. Federal American Partners, Wyo., 567 P.2d 710 (1977); Mor, Inc. v. Haverlock, supra; In re Hardison, Wyo., 429 P.2d 320 (1967). However, the worker is entitled to a contrary presumption after the district court makes a finding that the evidence at the h......
-
Corman, Matter of
...v. Texaco, Inc., 400 P.2d 529, 531 (Wyo.1965), reh'g denied, 401 P.2d 708 (1965) (time of disability and cause thereof); In re Hardison, 429 P.2d 320, 322 (Wyo.1967) (time of injury, cause and relation to employment); Jennings v. C.M. & W. Drilling Co., 77 Wyo. 69, 73-74, 307 P.2d 122, 124 ......
-
Wyoming Steel & Fab, Inc. v. Robles
...Jennings v. C.M. & W. Drilling Company, 77 Wyo. 69, 307 P.2d 122, 123-124; Bemis v. Texaco, Inc., Wyo., 400 P.2d 529, 531; In re Hardison, Wyo., 429 P.2d 320, 322; Sheridan Coal Co. v. Harnsberger, 43 Wyo. 226, 3 P.2d 80, 82; Associated Seed Growers, Inc. v. Scrogham, 52 Wyo. 232, 73 P.2d 3......