International Paper Co. v. Myers

• Decision Date: 03 April 1961
• Docket Number: No. 5-2349,5-2349
• Citation: 233 Ark. 378,345 S.W.2d 1
• Parties: INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY, Appellant, v. Elizabeth MYERS et al., Appellees.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Page 1

345 S.W.2d 1

233 Ark. 378

INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY, Appellant, v. Elizabeth MYERS et al., Appellees.

No. 5-2349.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

April 3, 1961.

Rehearing Denied May 1, 1961.

Gaughan & Lancy, Camden, for appellant.

McMath, Leatherman, Woods & Youngdahl, Little Rock, for appellees.

HARRIS, Chief Justice.

This is a workmen's compensation case. Fletcher Myers, age 43, was an employee of International Paper Company, having been so employed from May 15, 1948, until and including the afternoon of February 26, 1958, when he suffered a heart attack about 5 p.m., and died in the car of a neighbor, who had been called to drive him from the plant to the hospital, located in Camden. The claim for death benefits and funeral allowance under the Workmen's Compensation Act, Ark.Stats. § 81-1301 et seq., was filed by Elizabeth Myers, the widow, in behalf of herself and two children. The claim was heard by the referee, who concluded that the death resulted from accidental injury arising out of, and in the course of employment, and awarded benefits to claimants. On appeal, the full Commission affirmed this award. The judgment of the Commission was affirmed by the Circuit Court of Ouachita County, and appellant has perfected this appeal. Five points are urged for reversal, but actually, all relate to a single question, viz., 'Does the medical testimony support the finding of the Commission that there was a causal connection between the deceased's fatal heart attack and the work he was doing on the date of his death?'

Myers worked as a tube lancer in connection with a water tube boiler. This work consisted of putting a tube, approximately 12 feet long and weighing in the neighborhood of 20 pounds, into small portholes in the side of an eight story boiler. The tube was connected to a high pressure (approximately 120 pounds) steam hose. The steam is used to remove accumulations from water pipes inside the boiler to prevent these accumulations from insulating the pipes, and lessening the steam produced. Myers generally worked as a 'second helper' or 'port puncher' downstairs, but he had commenced this last job as a tube lancer three or four days prior to his death, though he had also previously done this type of work. During an eight hour shift, the tube lancers worked from the eighth floor down to the fifth. Buddy Sevier, who worked with Myers, explained the operation as follows: The lance tube, or rod, has two holes at the end (on each side), which expels the steam. The steam hose brings the steam into the rod. The rod is balanced in the port and worked up and down, and then moved to the next port. Sevier stated that frequently a film forms, and cakes on the tubes, and 'you have to jar it off.' According to the witness, the work on the seventh floor (where Myers was working at the time of the attack) was harder than on the other floors. As reflected by subsequent evidence, this was because more portholes on the seventh floor tended to 'stop up' than on the others, and a person was required to stoop over more to get the rod into the porthole. Sevier testified that about 5 o'clock, he and Myers stopped work in order to eat supper; that they would take time about going after the food, and it was his (Sevier's) day to go. Myers told him that he wanted a cheeseburger, and a pint of milk, but as the witness started to leave, changed his mind, and directed Sevier to get him a full lunch and a pint of milk. He stated that as far as he knew, Myers felt all right, and that nothing had happened out of the ordinary that afternoon in connection with their work. As Sevier returned with the lunches, he saw Myers walking toward the first aid station, but did not talk with him. H. W. Ashworth, in charge of the boiler room where Myers worked, testified that the job Myers was working on at the time of the heart attack was not as difficult as the job that he had been doing (second helper). O. E. Shambley, head 'tube lancer', testified that the work was 'hotter and harder' downstairs, but like Myers, he preferred downstairs work because there were more people there to talk with. Shambley stated that he had never heard Myers complain about feeling bad in any way until the date of his death, when the latter, while waiting for his supper, stated, 'I'm going down to first aid and get something for my indigestion.' Jeanette Lemmons, employed by International as a nurse at the first aid station in the Camden mill, testified that she was on duty when Myers reported to the station, and asked for a dose of citrocarbonate; that he complained that his ulcers were 'acting up'; also, 'my arm is hurting me', and that he stated the pain was radiating back in his left shoulder. Myers was insistent upon returning to work, but the nurse persuaded him that he should be examined by Dr. Perry Dalton. He requested her to call his next door neighbor, Carl Tucker, Jr., for the purpose of taking him to the hospital. Tucker responded, and testified that Myers walked out of the first aid station, got in the car, and they left immediately for the hospital; 'I asked him what his trouble was. He said he had a hurting in his chest, hurting down both arms, said his fingers were tingling on both hands. I asked him if he ever had any trouble before like that and he said he did, said it had been bothering him about two weeks, especially when they were shaking those tubes he had a sharp pain in his chest.' ¹ Tucker stated that Myers died after they had traveled about one mile. Elizabeth Myers, widow, was not aware of her husband being afflicted with heart trouble, and stated that he had no physical complaints during the months before he died, other than, for about two years prior to his death, he had complained many times of being 'exhausted' when he came home, and would sometimes mention pain in his arms and legs.

The rules which govern this case have been reiterated with frequency, and no new question is presented. Actually, appellant's arguments appear to be somewhat directed to an attempt to persuade the court to change its holding, as set forth in Bryant Stave and Heading Co....