Lainhart v. Rural Doxol Gas Co.
| Decision Date | 13 March 1964 |
| Citation | 376 S.W.2d 681 |
| Parties | Chester LAINHART, Appellant, v. RURAL DOXOL GAS COMPANY et al., Appellees. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
Ware, Bryson & Nolan, Covington, Robert F. Greene, Burlington, for appellant.
Wise & Brose, Cincinnati, Ohio, for appellees.
DAVIS, Commissioner.
Appellant asks reversal of a judgment of the Kenton Circuit Court which affirmed an award of the Workmen's Compensation Board. The Board's award allowed appellant temporary total disability from July 18, 1960, to July 30, 1960, plus permanent partial disability award for 398 2/7ths weeks, at the rate of $7.75 per week, based upon a finding of 25% permanent partial disability.
Appellant asserts error on these points: (1) the evidence conclusively demonstrates total permanent disability, and (2) in any event, his total disability, even if temporary, was of greater duration than the period from July 18 to July 30, 1960.
Appellant, Lainhart, was employed by appellee Rural Natural Gas Company on and before July 18, 1960; on that date, while lifting two tanks of propane gas onto a truck, he sustained an injury to his back. He was confined to a hospital from July 18 to July 30, 1960. Although released from the hospital on July 30, 1960, appellant had not been employed at the time of the hearing before a referee of the Workmen's Compensation Board on January 17, 1961.
Appellant had formerly worked as a cook for Tastee Foods; during that employment he sustained a back injury approximately six years before the incident at bar. He was off work then two or three days, consulted a chiropractor (now deceased) but did not receive compensation on account of that complaint. Appellant sustained a back injury while loading rock for appellee some 'year and a half' before July 18, 1960. He was off work two weeks then, but received no compensation.
The medical testimony reflects that appellant had suffered intermittent backache for three years prior to the accident. The expert evidence classified the condition as a congenital defect in the lumbar area, evidenced in part by a narrowing of the fifth lumbar intervertebral disc. The medical testimony clearly supports the findings of the Workmen's Compensation Board. The parties concede, of course, that this court will not upset the Board's finding if it is supported by competent evidence of probative value. Deby Coal Co. v. Roark, Ky., 360 S.W.2d 511.
Appellant earnestly contends that the medical testimony is unanimous in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
D.W. Wilburn, Inc. v. Massengill
...valid cross-appeal. See, e.g., Farmers Nat'l Bank of Danville v. Moore, 282 Ky. 502, 139 S.W.2d 420, 422 (1940); Lainhart v. Rural Doxol Gas Co., 376 S.W.2d 681, 682 (Ky. 1964);CR2 76.25(9). But, it did not. And in the absence of a cross-appeal, an appellee is only entitled to argue that th......
-
Campbell v. Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Cabinet, No. 2003-CA-001413-MR (KY 7/2/2004), No. 2003-CA-001413-MR.
...cross-appeal, it is precluded from our review. See Smith v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Ky., 6 S.W.3d 829 (1999); Lainhart v. Rural Doxol Gas Co., Ky., 376 S.W.2d 681 (1964); and Center v. Rose, 252 Ky. 463, 67 S.W.2d 698 We now move on to Campbell's argument that under the definitions of surfac......
-
Bridge the Gap, Inc. v. City of Louisville
...valid cross-appeal. See, e.g., Farmers Nat. Bank of Danville v. Moore, 282 Ky. 502, 139 S.W.2d 420, 422 (1940); Lainhart v. Rural Doxol Gas Co., 376 S.W.2d 681, 682 (Ky. 1964). In the absence of a cross-appeal, an appellee is only entitled to argue that the trial court reached the correct r......
-
Mullins v. Bullens
...in brief for appellees. No cross-appeal has been filed; these claimed errors are not before us for review. CR 74; Lainhart v. Rural Doxol Gas Co., Ky., 376 S.W.2d 681. The judgment is reversed for proceedings consistent with the ...