Harriman Mfg. Co. v. Shadden

• Decision Date: 16 November 1954
• Citation: 1 McCanless 328,273 S.W.2d 12,197 Tenn. 328
• Parties: HARRIMAN MFG. CO. et al., Plaintiff in Error, v. Walter SHADDEN, Defendant in Error. 1 McCanless 328, 197 Tenn. 328, 273 S.W.2d 12
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

Page 12

273 S.W.2d 12

HARRIMAN MFG. CO. et al., Plaintiff in Error, v. Walter SHADDEN, Defendant in Error.

1 McCanless 328, 197 Tenn. 328, 273 S.W.2d 12

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

Nov. 16, 1954.

Massey, Stone & Kirkland, Chattanooga, for petitioner, Walter shadden.

Frazier, Roberts & Weill, Chattanooga, for defendants, Harriman Mfg. Co. and American Mut. Liability Ins. Co.

SWEPSTON, Justice.

The Trial Court awarded Walter Shadden workmen's compensation and rendered a judgment against his employer, Harriman Manufacturing Company, and its insurance carrier, American Mutual Liability Insurance Company. Both parties, plaintiff and defendant, have appealed and assigned error.

The employer and its insurance carrier have only one assignment of error which is to the effect that there is no evidence to support the verdict of the Trial Judge in finding that the petitioner's injury arose out of and in the course of employment. It is insisted that the facts testified to by the petitioner and the doctors all clearly showed that any disabilities suffered by the petitioner were not the result of any accident received while employed by said defendant.

This insistence by the defendant is based upon these facts: The petitioner was injured on the 7th day of August 1952, while doing heavy lifting. The accident occurred on the evening shift about 9:00 o'clock at night and there was no medical attention available at that time, but the next day when petitioner went to the Company doctor, his injury was diagnosed as a muscular strain and he was given some pain-pills. Petitioner went back to the Company doctor several times and on August 27, 1952, the doctor stated that petitioner was able to return to work. He did return to work on August 27th, but after working four or five days he quit. On October 28, 1952, petitioner passed a pre-employment examination and began working for Hiwassee Construction Company rebuilding the T. N. T. Plant near Chattanooga, where he remained until about January 4, 1953, and while there was engaged as a laborer lifting pieces of timber of various sizes, some of which were quite heavy, possibly weighing 300 pounds, although it appears that there were six or eight men used in handling these heavier timbers.

It appears that petitioner was treated by several doctors and that the first impression in the minds of some of them was that he had only a muscular sprain in the upper left side of his back, although it developed later that he had what is commonly called a ruptured disc for which he was operated finally on May 12, 1953, and the disc was removed.

This Court does not review the evidence in compensation cases to determine where the preponderance of the evidence lies but reviews it only for the purpose of determining whether there is any material evidence to support the finding of the lower Court. No citation of authority is necessary for this.

The insistence in behalf of the employer briefly stated is that since the petitioner was returned to work on August 26, by the Company physician and after quitting his employment there, did not go to his own doctors after September 29th, and was certified for work at the Hiwassee plant on October 28th, did heavy lifting there, was later promoted and worked at the Hiwassee plant without complaining to that employer, coupled with the fact that the petitioner's doctors did not decide until several months afterwards that petitioner's trouble was a ruptured disc, and the fact that petitioner at first complained of pain in the upper left side of his...