Hughes v. Elliott

• Decision Date: 21 February 1931
• Citation: 35 S.W.2d 387,162 Tenn. 188
• Parties: HUGHES et al. v. ELLIOTT et al.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

35 S.W.2d 387

162 Tenn. 188

HUGHES et al. v. ELLIOTT et al.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

February 21, 1931

Error to Circuit Court, Davidson County; A. G. Rutherford, Judge.

Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Frances Hughes as widow, and as next friend of minor dependents of Archie Hughes, deceased employee, opposed by Robert Elliott employer, and others. To review judgment dismissing the petition, the claimant brings error.

Affirmed.

Atkinson & Atkinson and M. H. Goldschein, all of Nashville, for plaintiff in error.

Manier & Crouch, of Nashville, for defendants in error.

MCKINNEY J.

This proceeding, under the Workmen's Compensation Act (Pub Laws 1919, c. 123), is before us solely upon the technical record. The petition was filed by Frances Hughes, as the widow of Archie Hughes, and as next friend of three named minor grandchildren of Archie Hughes, who were wholly dependent upon him for support. Archie Hughes, while in the employ of defendant, Robert Elliott, stuck a nail in his foot on October 13, 1927. On the 20th of that month he developed tetanus, from which he died three days later. The trial court found that within five minutes after the accident defendant directed deceased to go across the street to its physician and surgeon for examination and treatment; that this instruction was repeated from time to time; that defendant made arrangements to have deceased taken to the hospital for treatment; that deceased refused to accede to these demands and that his death was due to his persistent refusal to accept the medical and hospital treatment offered to him by his employer. The court further found that the wife of deceased refused to permit him to be carried to the hospital and treated by defendant's physician.

It seems to be practically conceded that, had the employee lived, he could not have recovered for this injury, and that his widow cannot recover; but it is insisted that the refusal of the employee, acquiesced in by his wife, to accept the proffered medical services, does not bar his minor dependents from recovering compensation. The trial court held that it did, and dismissed the petition.

Section 25 of the act requires the employee to submit to an examination by the physician of the employer, and to accept medical treatment from him, and then provides: "If the injured employee refuses to comply with any reasonable request for examination, or refuses to accept the medical service which the employer is required to furnish under the provisions of this Act, his right to compensation shall be suspended and no compensation shall be due and payable while he continues...