Jeffery Stone Co. v. Raulston
| Decision Date | 27 February 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 5--4131,5--4131 |
| Citation | 242 Ark. 13,412 S.W.2d 275 |
| Parties | JEFFERY STONE COMPANY, Appellant, v. Lester H. RAULSTON, Appellee. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Terral, Rawlings, Matthews & Purtle, Little Rock, for appellant.
Edward H. Boyett, Clarksville, for appellee.
This is a Workmen's Compensation case. Jeffery Stone Company (appellant) is the employer and Lester H. Raulston (appellee) is the claimant. Appellant's insurance carrier was a defendant and is also one of the appellants. Appellee's claim is based on silicosis.
The Referee denied appellee's claim, the full Commission allowed the claim, and the Circuit Court upheld the Commission.
Appellant here urges four separate points for a reversal. These points will be designated and discussed in the order presented to us. Necessary references to the record will be made as each point is discussed.
One. The essence of appellant's first contention is that appellee must offer more than mere substantial evidence that his disability was caused by silicosis because he was not employed for a period of five years. A basis for this contention is Ark.Stat. § 81--1314(b)(2) (Repl.1960). The portion of subdivision (2) applicable to the facts here reads as follows:
'In the absence of conclusive evidence in favor of the claim, disability or death from silicosis * * * shall be presumed not to be due to the nature of any occupation within the provision of this section, unless * * * the employee has been exposed to the inhalation of silica dust * * * over a period of not less than five (5) years * * *.'
We see no merit in this contention.
Both the Referee (who denied the claim) and the full Commission found appellee had been in the employment of appellant for a period of more than five years, and we think they were correct in doing so. Appellant admits appellee began work on June 15, 1959 and quit (or had to leave) on October 8, 1964--a period of three months and twenty three days more than five years. However, there are some deductions which appellant would make as presently shown.
(a) It is true that there was a period of two months and ten days when appellee did not work. However it does not clearly appear that he was not still in the employment of appellant during this time. Appellee said he thought he was. At any rate we think the Commission was justified in so finding. Even if he was not, that still leaves a period of one month and thirteen days over the five year period.
(b) The record shows that appellee was not actively working, due to illness, on two different occasions totaling a few days more than the one month and thirteen days mentioned above. Appellant apparently contends that these two sickness periods should also be deducted. On this point we agree with appellee that, under a liberal construction of the statute in favor of the claimant, these sick periods should not be deducted from his total period of employment. To carry appellant's interpretation of the statute to its fullest possibility an employee could be penalized for Saturdays, Sundays, holidays and one or two days of sickness. In any event, there is substantial evidence to support the Referee and the Commission on this point.
There is no merit in the contention that appellee became disabled prior to October 8, 1964. In the case of Arkansas Coal Co. v. Steele, 237 Ark. 727, 375 S.W.2d 673, we said:
'In silicosis cases the statute commences to run at the time of disablement and not from the time the claimant learns that he is suffering from the disease and disablement does occur until the employee is unable to work and earn his usual wages.'
Also, in Hixon Coal Co. v. Furstenberg, 225 Ark. 568, 284 S.W.2d 120, it is stated:
'In silicosis, the injury may occur many years before the disease becomes manifest, as the accumulated effects of the deleterious substance are of slow, insidious nature.'
Two. We cannot agree with appellant's contention there is no substantial evidence to support a finding that appellee's disability was caused from silicosis.
Ark.Stat.Ann. § 81--1314 (Repl.1960) deals with occupational...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ward v. Fayetteville City Hosp., CA
...285 Ark. at 247, 686 S.W.2d 399. The same rule applies in appeals from the Workers' Compensation Commission. In Jeffery Stone Co. v. Raulston, 242 Ark. 13, 412 S.W.2d 275 (1967), the court did not agree with the appellant's contentions for two First, the issue was not raised before the Comm......
-
Hawthorne v. Davis
...hearsay testimony at the hearing; and, therefore, the issue cannot be considered for the first time on appeal. Jeffery Stone Co. v. Raulston, 242 Ark. 13, 412 S.W.2d 275 (1967); and Clark v. Peabody Testing Services, Admittedly, the only evidence that the trip to Glenwood was business conne......
-
Finch v. Neal
...Memorial Gardens, 272 Ark. 172, 616 S.W.2d 713 (1981); Hawthorne v. Davis, 268 Ark. 131, 594 S.W.2d 844 (1980); Jeffrey Stone Co. v. Raulston, 242 Ark. 13, 412 S.W.2d 275 (1967). However, inasmuch as Mr. Finch asked for "special" findings, we address this issue in a limited The Committee wa......
-
Hill v. White-Rodgers
...from the Workers' Compensation Commission. Ashcraft v. Quimby, 2 Ark.App. 332, 621 S.W.2d 230 (1981); Jeffery Stone v. Lester H. Raulston, 242 Ark. 13, 412 S.W.2d 275 (1967). MAYFIELD, COOPER and CORBIN, JJ., dissent. MAYFIELD, Chief Judge, dissenting. I have two basic problems with the maj......