Jackson v. McDonnell Aircraft Corp., 32741

• Decision Date: 20 February 1968
• Docket Number: No. 32741,32741
• Citation: 426 S.W.2d 669
• Parties: Junior DeWayne JACKSON, Claimant-Appellant, v. McDONNELL AIRCRAFT CORPORATION, Employer-Respondent.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

Page 669

426 S.W.2d 669

Junior DeWayne JACKSON, Claimant-Appellant, v. McDONNELL AIRCRAFT CORPORATION, Employer-Respondent.

No. 32741.

St. Louis Court of Appeals, Missouri.

Feb. 20, 1968.

Rehearing Denied March 21, 1968.

Donald M. Witte, George G. White, Brentwood, Satz & Ponfil, St. Louis, for claimant-appellant.

Robertson, De Voto & Wieland, Louis A. Robertson, Robert E. Wieland, Morton K. Lange, St. Louis, for employer-respondent.

DOERNER, Commissioner.

This appeal, originally taken to the Supreme Court but transferred here for lack of jurisdiction, involves a claim for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Law.

On August 24, 1964, a few minutes before the end of his work day, claimant was observed to be standing, with his arms at his side, in the area where the last task assigned to him had been completed by him and approved by the employer's inspector. When first observed claimant was bleeding profusely from a severe cut on the right side of his throat which had severed his jugular vein and his posterior facial vein. At the hearing before the Referee claimant testified that he had no memory of any activities or events which occurred on the day in question subsequent to his reporting for work at 7:00 A.M. Neither party produced an eyewitness as to the manner in which claimant had sustained his injury. In the absence of any direct evidence as to the way in which he had been injured claimant throughout the proceeding has relied on the presumption stated as a part of what the court called its 'general observations' in Mershon v. Missouri Public Service Corp., 359 Mo. 257, 221 S.W.2d 165, 167, that, '* * * the burden is on a claimant to show that an employee's injury resulted from an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment; but, when an employee charged with the performance of a duty is found injured at a place where his duty required him to be, a presumption arises that he was injured in the course of and in consequence of his employment; that such presumption is rebuttable.' Employer, by its amended answer, denied that claimant had been injured in an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment and pleaded the affirmative defense that whatever injury the claimant had sustained was 'self-inflicted and not the result of an accident.' The Referee and the Industrial Commission denied claimant's claim for compensation, and on his appeal the Circuit Court of St. Louis County affirmed the Commission's final award.

The evidence developed during the claimant's presentation of his case showed the following: Claimant, 30 years of age at the time of the hearing in February, 1965, was first employed by the employer, McDonnell Aircraft Corporation, on March 3, 1958, but voluntarily resigned on July 11, 1958. He was rehired on April 11, 1961, and continued in the employ of McDonnell until August 24, 1964, being then classified as a Mechanic Airplane Production, Grade 1. On January 28, 1963 he consulted Dr. James E. Meyer, a general practitioner, complaining of an enlarged varicocele and nervousness. Dr. Meyer prescribed a suspensory but no medication. On July 17, 1963, the claimant saw the doctor and complained of anorexia, loss of appetite, nervousness and diarrhea. Dr. Meyer prescribed a tranquilizer and advised claimant to return in a week, but claimant did not return until January 27, 1964. His chief complaints then were loss of appetite and nervousness, and the diagnosis the doctor made was anorexia, nervosa, depression and symptoms of nervousness. Claimant's next consultation with the doctor was on July 23, 1964, at which time Dr. Meyer found the claimant depressed and without appetite. On that day the doctor urged claimant to see a psychiatrist, Dr. Edwin Schmidt, gave claimant a vitamin shot, and prescribed Librium, an antibiotic. On July 27, 1964 claimant returned to Dr. Meyer, who found him still depressed, with no improvement, and since claimant had not seen Dr. Schmidt the doctor again urged him to do so. The last time the doctor saw claimant prior to the subject occurrence was on August 21, 1964, when he found him slightly improved but still depressed and without appetite, and for the third time urged claimant to see Dr. Schmidt, the psychiatrist Dr. Meyer had recommended.

Between January 1, 1964, and August 24, 1964, claimant was absent from his employment on 26 days, the last of which was on August 21. Of these, 12 were recorded as being due to personal reasons and 14, including that on August 21, for illness. On July 27, or 28, 1964 David P. Barbeau, the assistant foreman then over claimant, together with the union's shop steward and Hoelting, Barbeau's supervisor, talked to the claimant about his absenteeism. Claimant told them that he was extremely nervous and under a doctor's care, and that his doctor had recommended he see a psychiatrist. Claimant's evidence also showed that he was on his vacation for two weeks beginning August 3, 1964, and that he returned to work on August 17, 1964.

According to claimant's wife he arose at 5:30 A.M. on August 24, 1964, ate his breakfast, played with his young daughter, and discussed with her her plans for the day and their plans to go somewhere after work. Claimant departed at 5:45 A.M. after kissing her good-bye. Claimant testified that he remembered riding to work that morning in a car pool, but stated that he didn't know the names of any of the other members of the pool except a man named Cooper, whose first name he didn't know. He did know that he reported for work that morning at 7:00 A.M., in Building 1, Department 177, but testified as previously stated, that he could not recall anything after that time on that day. When first cross-examined claimant was asked, '* * * Have you ever been treated for a nervous condition before August 24, 1964?' and answered, 'Yes, sir.' He was then asked who had treated him for such nervous condition and replied, 'Dr. Meyers, sir.' Claimant's cross-examination was interrupted for the appearance of other of his witnesses, and when it was resumed six days later he was asked and answered:

'Q With reference to Dr. Meyer, do you know how long you had been under his care and attention--under the care and attention of Dr. Meyer. Can you tell me how long Dr. Meyer had been treating you for any condition?

'A No, sir.

'Q Before August 24th?

'A No, sir.

'Q And I believe you did testify he was treating you for nervousness, is that correct, before August 24, 1964, or did you say that?

'A I don't remember.

'Q You don't remember. And let me ask you this then: Were you being treated for a nervous condition by Dr. Meyer before August 24, 1964?

'A I don't remember.'

At 2:11 P.M. on August 24, 1964, Lester J. Presley, the assistant foreman then in charge of claimant, assigned him the task of replacing a bolt of improper length with one of the proper length on a control rod. The rod was located in a hole or compartment underneath door L--89 on an airplane under construction designated as C--230. The so-called door was in fact a flat sheet of metal approximately 8 inches by 14 inches in size, fastened to the underneath side of the left wing of the plane by screws, and was situated close to the fuselage. The underside of the wing was about 7 feet off the floor. The meticulous records kept by the employer, which were introduced by claimant, reveal that claimant completed the replacement of the bolt and requested an inspection of his work at about 3:00 P.M., preparatory to closing the door; that Gerald W. Mueller, an inspector, examined the work performed and approved the closing of the door at some time between 3:00 and 3:10 P.M.; that claimant proceeded to close the door and called for an inspection of the closed door and a seal to be placed thereon, which was used to indicate that an inspection had been made; that Mueller inspected and approved the door as closed and placed the seal, a decal, thereon some time between 3:23 and 3:30; and that this completed claimant's work on the door and no other work was assigned to him, as his work day was to end at 3:30.

According to Barbeau, called by claimant as his witness, he was at his desk, about 35 to 40 feet from the left wing of plane C--230, when an employee named Lyons told him that claimant was bleeding from the face. From that position he could not see claimant. He immediately proceeded towards claimant, whom he first saw when he rounded the tail of plane C--230. Claimant was standing upright beneath the left wing of plane C--230, in the area where he had been working, with his arms at his side, bleeding heavily from a cut on the right side of his neck. Barbeau was the first person to reach claimant, and with the help of Clarence Cooper, an inspector who was right behind him, they laid claimant on a work stand located about 12 inches from where he had been standing. Barbeau rolled claimant on his left side and attempted to stanch the flow of blood with first a handkerchief, and when it quickly became saturated, with a pile of cheese cloth. Claimant, according to Barbeau, made no statement and at first had his eyes open and made an attempt to raise up, but then closed his eyes and just laid there. An assistant foreman, George Staton, asked Barbeau if he had the pressure point, and when Barbeau replied in the negative, asked to try to locate it. Barbeau then walked around claimant's head and in front of him, and upon looking down saw that claimant had a knife clenched in his left hand. There was blood on the knife. Barbeau removed it from claimant's hand by taking hold of his fingers and prying them open, and laid the knife on the work stand.

The emergency alarm had been sounded and Ethel Wood, the nurse from the first aid room arrived, who also attempted to stop the flow of blood. Barbeau helped place claimant on a stretcher and carry him to the first aid room. He washed his hands and returned to the area where claimant had been working....