Harrison Steel Castings Co. v. Daniels

• Decision Date: 04 November 1970
• Docket Number: No. 470A49,No. 2,470A49,2
• Citation: 147 Ind.App. 666,263 N.E.2d 288,23 Ind.Dec. 378
• Parties: HARRISON STEEL CASTINGS COMPANY, Appellant, v. Bennie O. DANIELS, Appellee
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

Page 288

263 N.E.2d 288

147 Ind.App. 666

HARRISON STEEL CASTINGS COMPANY, Appellant, v. Bennie O. DANIELS, Appellee.

No. 470A49.

Appellate Court of Indiana, Division No. 2.

Nov. 4, 1970.

James V. McGlone, Stuart, Branigin, Ricks & Schilling, Lafayette, for appellant.

John R. Walsh, Anderson, Dwight S. Beckner, New Castle, for appellee.

HOFFMAN, Peesiding Justice.

This is an appeal by defendant-employer, Harrison Steel Castings Company, from an award by the Full Industrial Board of Indiana to plaintiff-appellee, Bennie O. Daniels. After hearing on appellee's Form 9 application the Hearing Member of the Industrial Board entered an award of two weeks' temporary total disability and 75 weeks' permanent partial impairment for a complete loss of hearing in the left ear, in favor of appellee. Thereafter, a review was had before the Full Industrial Board which entered an award identical to the award entered by the Hearing Member.

The facts in the record before us may be summarized as follows:

On January 17 and 18, 1966, appellee was working the 10:30 P.M. to 7:00 A.M. shift as a grinder. He was working in the vicinity of other grinders when 'a spark' went into his left ear, which burned and caused him pain. Appellee suffered no loss of hearing at that time and continued working until 7:00 A.M., January 18, 1966, completing his shift.

When appellee went home his left ear was still burning and hurting. He then cleaned up, and while seated for breakfast his left ear 'popped.' Since that moment appellee has been totally deat in his left ear.

On the same day appellee was sent by appellant to Dr. Wendell A. Weller, who examined his left ear and removed 'several small, round metallic looking bodies laying on the floor of the left external auditory canal.' Dr. Weller testified that 'the tympanic membrane ¹ on the left side appeared in tact (intact) and without evidence of injury.'

Appellee was allowed to go home but he testified that the doctor told him, 'Now, if you start getting dizzy, nauseated, stuff like that, get you (yourself) over here.'

The next day appellee did become dizzy and nauseous and was hospitalized from January 19, 1966, until February 3, 1966, under the care of Dr. Weller. He was released for work on February 7, 1966, and last seen by Dr. Weller on April 22, 1966. Dr. Weller diagnosed the cause of appellee's loss of hearing as a 'vascular situation' not related to the 'spark' incident.

Dr. Howard R. Searight examined appellee on June 19, 1969, and at that time determined that the left eardrum was intact, though very scarred, and there was a complete loss of hearing in the left ear. In response to a hypothetical question propounded to Dr. Searight he stated that in his medical opinion 'a piece of steel or a foreign body striking the eardrum and penetrating the vestibule, and entering, can cause these kinds of physical findings.' It is this opinion-testimony of Dr. Searight that appellant attacks in this appeal. There is no dispute that appellee was struck in the left ear by small pieces of metal on January 17 or 18, 1966. Neither is there a dispute that this accident arose out of and in the course of appellee's employment.

The issue to be decided by this court is whether there is competent evidence of probative value from which the Full Industrial Board could find that the small pieces of metal removed from appellee's left ear canal caused the loss of hearing.

Appellant contends that Dr. Searight's opinion-testimony is based upon a fact not in evidence, i.e., penetration of the eardrum, and, therefore, such testimony could not be considered by the Board. Appellant argues that without Dr. Searight's opinion-testimony the record is completely devoid of any evidence on an essential element of appellee's case--causation. Appellant contends that the evidence, without Dr. Searight's opinion-testimony, viewed in a light most favorable to appellee, leads to only one conclusion, that being contrary to the one reached by the Full Industrial Board.

Appellant's sole assignment of error is that the award of the Full Industrial Board is contrary to law. This assignment of error is sufficient to present both the sufficiency of the facts found to sustain the award and the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the finding of facts. Deardorff v. City of East Chicago, 114 Ind.App. 102, 104, 50 N.E.2d 926 (1943); White v. Spencer Cardinal Corp., 106 Ind.App. 338, 341, 19 N.E.2d 866 (1939); Hunt v. Gutzwiller Baking Co., 104 Ind.App. 209, 212, 9 N.E.2d 129 (1937).

The evidentiary rule upon which appellant relies is well established in the law. It is clear that a hypothetical question which is based upon a fact not in evidence cannot be proof of any issue. Viant v. Town of Lowell, 117 Ind.App. 354, 356, 72 N.E.2d 239 (1947); Magazine v. Shull, 116 Ind.App. 79, 88, 60 N.E.2d 611 (1945), (transfer denied); Town of Newburgh v. Jones, 115 Ind.App. 320, 324, 58 N.E.2d 938 (1945).

The testimony is uncontroverted that a loss of hearing due to the sparks would be very unusual unless the eardrum was punctured. The question for this court to decide is whether there is competent evidence in the record to allow the Board to find that the eardrum was punctured, notwithstanding Dr. Weller's testimony that it 'appeared in tact (intact) and without evidence of injury.' If the evidence or any reasonable inferences that could be drawn therefrom--exclusive of the opinion-testimony of Dr. Searight--support the decision reached by the Board then the award must be affirmed. In such situation the opinion-testimony of Dr. Searight would have been based upon facts in evidence and the Board could have considered it. To the contrary however, if, as appellant asserts, there is no evidence of probative value--other than the opinion-testimony of Dr. Searight--which tends to show a causal relationship between the 'spark' incident and appellee's loss of hearing, then the award of the Full Industrial Board must be reversed.

The rules governing appellate review of the findings of the Industrial Board are well stated in Davis v. Webster, 136 Ind.App. 286, at 291--292, 198 N.E.2d 883, at 885--886 (1964), wherein Judge Hunter, speaking for this court, stated:

'Quite often proceedings in this court which challenge the correctness of the findings and orders of administrative bodies are designated and referred to as appeals, however such proceedings are in fact not civil appeals in the ordinary sense of the word, but rather are judicial reviews of the findings and orders of an administrative agency. In such a case, the finding of the administrative agency is conclusive and binding as to all conclusions of fact if such findings are premised upon evidence or reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom. In determining the correctness of the finding of the Industrial Board this court must accept only the evidence most favorable to the appellee. (Citing authorities.)

'Further, the rule is well established that the Appellate Court may not reverse the finding of the Industrial Board unless the evidence and all reasonable inferences to be based thereon are of such a conclusive nature as to force a contrary decision. (Citing authorities.)

'This court under the law cannot reverse the findings of the Industrial Board on fact issues unless it conclusively appears that the evidence upon which the Industrial Board acted was devoid of probative value; or...