Lane Poultry Farms v. Wagoner
| Decision Date | 04 May 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 5--5237,5--5237 |
| Citation | 248 Ark. 661,453 S.W.2d 43 |
| Parties | LANE POULTRY FARMS et al., Appellants, v. Nallie C. WAGONER, Appellee. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Shaver, Tackett, Young & Patton, Texarkana, for appellants.
John B. Hainen, DeQueen, for appellee.
This is a workmen's compensation case. The circuit court affirmed a finding of the Workmen's Compensation Commission that appellee, Nallie C. Wagoner, suffered a fifty per cent permanent partial disability to the body as a whole. The single question on appeal is whether there is substantial evidence to support that finding.
Appellants, being the employer and the insurance carrier, insist that because of unusual circumstances we should 'search the record, weigh the evidence, determine where the preponderance lies and decide whether there is substantial evidence * * *.' The claim was initially heard by a compensation referee, Mr. Norwood Phillips. All witnesses who personally testified appeared before him. Mr. Phillips kept the case open to allow both sides to introduce reports of subsequent medical examinations. Referee Phillips resigned to enter private practice before the additional evidence was filed and therefore did not render an opinion. When all subsequent exhibits were placed of record the claim was referred to Referee Newbern Chambers; he reviewed the complete transcript and rendered his opinion. The respondents appealed to the full commission. 'Having considered the evidence, the referee's opinion and oral arguments,' the commission concluded that the award of the referee should be adopted as its findings.
It is of course apparent that the referee (Mr. Chambers) who rendered the opinion, did not see and hear the witnesses. Therefore, appellants argue, the referee did not have the grasp of the case as if he had conducted the hearing. Appellants deduce from those facts that 'the verity which such opinions are normally given' should not be here accorded. The defect, reason appellants, can be cured by this court searching the record, weighing the evidence, and coming to its own conclusions.
We do not agree with appellants. First, the findings of the referee are of no significance either to the circuit court or to this court; resort is had on appeal only to the findings of the commission in testing the sufficiency of the evidence. Parker Stave Co. v. Hines, 209 Ark. 438, 190 S.W.2d 620 (1945). Secondly, if appellants felt aggrieved by the transfer of the claim from one referee to another they should have addressed their grievance to the trier of the facts, namely, the compensation commission; that is the body which weighs the evidence. Chapman v. C. Finkbeiner, Inc., 230 Ark. 655, 324 S.W.2d 348 (1959). The latter function was delegated to the commission by the Legislature. Farmer v. Knight Co., 220 Ark. 333, 248 S.W.2d 111 (1952). We do not try compensation cases de novo on appeal; we ascertain whether there is substantial testimony to support the commission. McKamie v. Kern-Trimble Drilling Co., 229 Ark. 86, 313 S.W.2d 378 (1958).
Appellee was employed by Lane Poultry Farms and sustained an injury on June 6, 1967. He was 54 years of age, and had worked many years at various laboring jobs without experiencing, according to his testimony, any disabling injuries or serious physical problems. His ailments at the time of the accident were some degenerative joint disease and vascular irregularity. Appellee insisted that those conditions created no physical problem. There was an abundance of testimony that prior to the accident appellee was very active, working regularly, making a large garden, driving a truck, hunting, and fishing. On the occasion of the accident appellee was 'pulling' ice with an electric hoist. One of the two containers fell from the hoist. In moving backward suddenly to avoid being struck, he fell over one of the container lids, his left leg doubled, and the full weight of his body fell on that leg. Appellee went to Dr. Bill Dickinson at DeQueen the next morning because he thought he had wrenched his back in the fall. Appellee was hospitalized for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Clark v. Peabody Testing Service
...support the administrative law judge's findings. Furthermore, we give the law judge's findings no weight whatever. Lane Poultry Farms v. Wagoner, 248 Ark. 661, 453 S.W.2d 43. See also, Allied Telephone Co. v. Rhodes, 248 Ark. 677, 454 S.W.2d Point No. 2 THE CIRCUIT COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO......
-
O. K. Processing, Inc. v. Servold
...Co. v. Goodpaster, 251 Ark. 1029, 476 S.W.2d 242; Oak Lawn Farms v. Payne, 251 Ark. 674, 474 S.W.2d 408; Lane Poultry Farms v. Wagoner, 248 Ark. 661, 453 S.W.2d 43. In our consideration of the evidence, however, we must give it its strongest probative force in favor of the actions of the co......
-
Arkansas Dept. of Health v. Williams
... ... Peabody Testing Service, 265 Ark. 489, 579 S.W.2d 360 (1979); Lane Poultry Farms v. Wagoner, 248 Ark. 661, 453 S.W.2d 43 (1970); Oller v ... ...
-
Dacus Casket Co. v. Hardy, 5--5561
...case, the findings of the referee are without significance on appeal to the circuit court or to this court. Lane Poultry Farms v. Wagoner (Ark., 1970) 453 S.W.2d 43; Moss v. El Dorado Drilling Co., 237 Ark. 80, 371 S.W.2d 528 (1963). Also, we have often said that the degree of disputed disa......