Lacy v. Comp. Comm'r

Citation106 W.Va. 555
Decision Date15 January 1929
Docket Number(No. 6417)
PartiesArnold Lacy v. Compensation Commissioner
CourtSupreme Court of West Virginia

1. Master and Servant Finding of Fact by State Compensa-

tion Commissioner, Based on Substantial Evidence, Will Not be Disturbed.

A finding of fact by the State Compensation Commissioner based on substantial evidence, not at variance with a clear preponderance of the whole evidence, will not be disturbed on appeal. (p. 558.)

2. Same Compensation Commissioner Held Warranted in Ter-

minating Compensation on Ground There Was no Permanent Ratable Disability as Residt of Injury to Chest (Workmen's Compensation Law, § 31, as amended by Acts 1925, c. 68).

A case wherein the Compensation Commissioner was warranted in disallowing further payments to the petitioner on the ground that medical examination failed to reveal any permanent ratable disability because of the accident suffered by petitioner. (p. 557.)

Appeal from Ruling of Commission.

Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Law by Arnold Lacy. Prom a ruling of the Commission of Appeals approving the termination of compensation by the Compensation Commissioner, claimant appeals.

Affirmed.

J. Sherman Lilly, for appellant.

Howard, B. Lee, Attorney General, and R. Dennis Steed, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

Maxwell, Judge:

On the 9th day of September, 1926, petitioner was injured about the chest and otherwise by being squeezed between a mine car and the roof of the mine where he was an employee of the Coal River Collieries Company at Prenter, West Vir- ginia. The chest injury affected the right lung necessitating an incision for drainage. There followed a partial collapse of the lower half of the right lung. He also suffered from an attack of pneumonia which greatly weakened his condition.

At the expiration of about nineteen months following the injury, during fifty-two weeks of which time the petitioner had been allowed compensation at the rate of $13.61 per week, the allowance was terminated by the Compensation Commissioner on the ground that physical examination failed to reveal that the petitioner had any ratable permanent disability as the result of his injury. On appeal, to the commission created by section 57, Chapter 68, Acts of the Legislature of 1925, the procedure of the Compensation Commissioner was approved. From the said action of the commission this appeal is prosecuted.

In an affidavit of the 21st of May, 1927, the petitioner says that his lungs are weak and that he gets tired easily when he walks around. Statements of physicians made upon examinations of the petitioner several months subsequent to the injury follow:

On the 5th of March, 1927, Dr. J. B. Lohan, who had first treated the petitioner on the day of his injury, stated: '' This is to certify that I have today examined Arnold Lacy of MacCorkle, West Virginia, and find that he still suffers from myocardial disease and collapsed base of right lung, which are the result of an accident last September, for which I also treated him. In my opinion Mr. Lacy should not work for at least six months." On the 11th of April, 1927, Dr. R. H. Walker, chief medical examiner of the Workmen's Compensation Department, and who had operated on claimant a few days following his accident in September, 1926, again examined petitioner and made a report of his examination wherein he states that the petitioner had suffered severe contusion of the chest which later developed into empyema of the right side; that the patient carried a scar between seventh and eighth ribs (presumably where drainage had been effected), but that this was not causing any trouble, and, in the opinion of the doctor, the claimant was then able to do light work. Under an examination of May 20, 1927, Dr. C. N. Watts found that the petitioner had not yet recovered from the weakened condition resulting from the attack of pneumonia which he suffered soon after the accident, and that at the time of the examination conditions were such that the physician could not determine how much longer the patient would be disabled. February 10, 1928, Dr. Walker made an X-ray examination which disclosed a fibrosis of the base of the right lung, probably the result of empyema; that there was then no definite evidence of active infection. The doctor stated that in his opinion the patient was "able to do some light work of some type." On the 10th of April, 1928, Dr. Lohan again examined the petitioner and reported a partial collapse of the lower half of the right lung, which, in the opinion of the physician, is a permanent disability. On the following day, Dr. Walker again examined petitioner and reported that his condition was the same as at the time of the examination February 10, 1928. The doctor said: "It is my belief that he is able to do some type of work and I recommend...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Conovas v. State Compensation Com'r
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • January 14, 1930
    ... ... 14, 144 S.E. 568; Postlethwait v. Compensation ... Commissioner, 106 W.Va. 57, 144 S.E. 717; Lacy v ... Compensation Commissioner, 106 W.Va. 555, 146 S.E. 375; ... Heaton v. Compensation ... ...
  • Lacy v. Compensation Com'r
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • January 15, 1929
  • Conovas v. Ott
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • January 14, 1930
    ...Va. 684; Caldwell v. Compensation Commissioner, 106 W. Va 14; Postlethwait v. Compensation Commissioner, 106 W. Va. 57; Lacy v. Compensation Commissioner, 106 W. Va. 555; Heat on v. Compensation Commissioner, 106 W. Va. 563; Kincannon v. Compensation Commissioner, and Proffitt v. Compensati......
  • Edwards v. State Comp. Comm'r., (No. 7381)
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • September 13, 1932
    ...evidence, not at variance with a clear preponderance of the whole evidence, will not be disturbed on appeal." Lacy v. Commissioner, 106 W. Va. 555, 146 S. E. 375. Proceedings by Hosea Edwards, claimant, under the Workmen's Compensation Act. From a ruling of the State Compensation Commission......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT