Johnson v. Chrysler Corp.

• Decision Date: 21 July 1965
• Parties: , 59 Del. 48 James C. JOHNSON, Employee-Appellee Below, Appellant, v. CHRYSLER CORPORATION, Employer-Appellant Below, Appellee.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Delaware

Page 64

213 A.2d 64

9 Storey 48, 59 Del. 48

James C. JOHNSON, Employee-Appellee Below, Appellant, v. CHRYSLER CORPORATION, Employer-Appellant Below, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Delaware.

July 21, 1965.

Reargument Denied Sept. 15, 1965.

John A. Faraone and James P. D'Angelo, Wilmington, for appellant.

Carl Schnee and David B. Coxe, Jr., of Coxe, Booker & Walls, Wilmington, for Chrysler.

WOLCOTT, Chief Justice, CAREY, Justice, and SEITZ, Chancellor, sitting.

WOLCOTT, Chief Justice.

This is an appeal from the reversal by the Superior Court of an award made by the Industrial Accident Board (hereafter 'Board'). The claimant appeals.

The claimant worked for Chrysler as a janitor. In 1957 he injured his back and missed about six weeks' work. He testified that on November 23, 1962, a Friday, while moving a heavy barrel as a part of his work he again injured his back; hat he told a Mrs. Cox, a fellow employee about his injury; that he was bothered by his back on the ensuing Saturday and Sunday, and that he reported to the Chrysler dispensary the following Monday. He further testified that he had not worked at Chrysler since the day of his injury; that he was admitted almost immediately to the Milford Hospital and was within a week transferred to Riverside Hospital where a lumbar laminectomy was performed a little over a week later. Actually, the operation was performed on March 13, 1963.

The claimant's testimony was corroborated in part by Mrs. Cox who testified the claimant had spoken to her of his injury as he had described; by the witness, Schuyler, a fellow employee, who took the claimant to the Chrysler dispensary on a Monday on a jitney because of his difficulty in walking; by the witness, Schmitz, a fellow employee, and who was sharing a car pool with the claimant, and on the day of the alleged injury drove the claimant's car home for him because of the pain in his back; and by the witness, Smith, the claimant's brogher-in-law, who testified that the claimant was in pain and had difficulty in moving about after the alleged injury.

In addition, the claimant called three doctors as witnesses who gave as their opinion in response to hypothetical questions based upon the claimant's version of the accident that it was the precipitating cause of the resultant back condition requiring the operation and the subsequent disability of the claimant.

Chrysler in opposition offered evidence that claimant had not received any treatment at its dispensary for a back injury in November, 1962, but on the contrary had reported to the dispensary with a condition known as cellulitis of the nose which kept him from work from November 28, 1962 through December 1, 1962. Another doctor, engaged in practice with the claimant's family doctor who testified on his behalf, testified that he was treated for the nose condition in late November. Claimant's foreman on the job testified that claimant's job entailed no lifting at all, and that on November 26, 1962 he gave the claimant a sick pass to report to the dispensary and that the claimant made no reference to an injury. Chrysler also proved that the claimant continued working at his regular job from November 23, 1962 through February 15, 1963 missing only six days' work during that period. It was also proved that claimant was paid group insurance for November 28, 1962 through December 1, 1962 and for February 15, 1963 through August 18, 1963. Chrysler also offered testimony that the claimant received unemployment compensation from August 26, 1963 until December 3, 1963.

On the basis of this record the Board found that claimant had a back ailment prior to his alleged injury and that on November 23, 1962 he aggravated his pre-existing back disorder while performing his work, and that this required medical, surgical and hospital services. The Board's award was for temporary total disability from February 21, 1963 until terminated by action of the Board.

On appeal to it by Chrysler the Superior Court reversed the award on the sole ground that there was no 'sufficient competent and satisfactory' evidence that the claimant had suffered an accident in the course of his employment. The Court found it unnecessary to consider other grounds urged by Chrysler.

It is, of course, correct that no award of compensation for injury may be made by the Board unless the claimant establishes by probative evidence that he suffered an injury and that such injury was the result of an accident taking place in the course of his employment. Furthermore, the accident must be established by proof with a definite referral to time, place and circumstance. Faline v. Guido & Francis DeAscanis & Sons, Del., 192 A.2d 921; Belber Trunk & Bag Co. v. Menesy, 8 Terry 595, 96 A.2d 341. We think, if accepted as true, the evidence offered in behalf of the claimant satisfies this requirement.

The Superior Court, however, was of the opinion that the claimant's evidence was not to be believed, apparently on the ground that it was so contradictory to undisputed facts as to be incredible. His evidence was, therefore, rejected entirely which, of course, left the record barren of any showing on his part.

On appeal from the Board, however, the Superior Court does not sit as a trier of fact...