Horn v. Elm Branch Coal Co.

• Decision Date: 09 March 1935
• Docket Number: 32137.
• Citation: 41 P.2d 751,141 Kan. 518
• Parties: HORN v. ELM BRANCH COAL CO. et al.
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

41 P.2d 751

141 Kan. 518

HORN v. ELM BRANCH COAL CO. et al.

No. 32137.

Supreme Court of Kansas

March 9, 1935

Syllabus by the Court.

Employee whose infected teeth were extracted to assist recovery after accidental injury held not entitled to compensation in sum sufficient to pay for artificial teeth.

Employee who consulted own physician after competent physicians and surgeons provided by employer informed employee that removal of eye was necessary after accidental injury held not entitled to reimbursement of consultation fee (Rev. St. Supp 1931, 44-- 510).

Refusal of $100 for future medical treatment following accidental injury held not abuse of discretion where record showed that employer had furnished medical attention but did not show whether statutory limit had been exceeded (Rev. St. Supp 1931, 44--510).

Evidence sustained compensation awarded on theory that injured employee had been continuously employed for more than a year as shot firer but that he had not worked all the time due to company's mining of soft coal (Rev. St. Supp. 1931 44--511, subd. 1 (a, b).

The proceedings in a compensation case considered and held claimant was not entitled to various awards for which he contended, and the award made was properly computed by the district court.

Appeal from District Court, Crawford County; Leland M. Resler, Judge.

Proceeding under Workmen's Compensation Act by Roy Horn, claimant, opposed by the Elm Branch Coal Company, employer, and Consolidated Underwriters, T. H. Mastin & Co., insurance carrier. From a judgment awarding claimant compensation, all parties appeal.

Sylvan Bruner and Walter T. Davis, both of Pittsburg, for appellant.

P. E. Nulton and G. L. Stevenson, both of Pittsburg, for appellees and cross-appellants.

BURCH Justice.

The proceeding was one for compensation to a shot firer in the coal mine of his employer, for total and permanent disability occasioned by premature explosion of a shot. Claimant was denied awards for certain items for which he contended, by both the compensation commissioner and the district court. The compensation commissioner awarded compensation, based on weekly wages of $19.20, the sum which claimant was receiving when injured. The district court computed the weekly wages as being $21.42. The employer's insurance carrier was joined. All parties appeal.

The accident occurred February 21, 1933. While claimant was undergoing treatment after injury, it was recommended that he should have his teeth removed. Nineteen teeth, all claimant had, were extracted, and his condition improved. Claimant contended he should be allowed $50 for a new set of false teeth, but no award for that purpose was made. When the accident occurred, claimant had two false teeth attached to a plate. The teeth were knocked from the plate. There was no other injury to teeth. Claimant already had decayed and infected teeth. There was no evidence that any of the teeth extracted became decayed or infected as a result of the accident, and there was no basis in the evidence to sustain a claim for the cost of a new set of false teeth.

Part of claimant's treatment after injury consisted of removal of one eye. After removal had been recommended, claimant asked a physician of claimant's own choice to examine him, and the physician charged claimant $10 for the examination. Claimant demanded reimbursement. The employer fully performed its statutory duty to provide physicians and surgeons to cure claimant and relieve him from effects of his injury. No dissatisfaction with their services was manifested, and there was no basis in law for charging to the employer the fee of the physician whom the claimant voluntarily consulted. R.S.Supp. 1931, 44--510.

Claimant wanted an allowance of $100 for future medical treatment. The...