Lashbrook v. Clipper Mfg. Co.

Decision Date06 April 1964
Docket NumberNo. 23954,23954
Citation377 S.W.2d 785
PartiesGeorge W. LASHBROOK (Employee), Respondent, v. CLIPPER MANUFACTURING COMPANY (Employer), Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (Insurer), Appellants.
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

A. Warren Francis, Lloyd A. Hamrick, Kansas City, for appellants.

Richard B. Curtis, Kansas City, for respondent.

BROADDUS, Presiding Judge.

This is a Workmen's Compensation case. The Referee awarded claimant the sum of $1200. From that finding the employer and insurer timely filed their application for review and the Industrial Commission entered its final award denying compensation. The specific finding of fact by the Industrial Commission is as follows:

'We find from the credible evidence that the employee has failed to carry the burden of proving that he sustained an accident on or about February 25, 1961, arising out of and in the course of his employment with Clipper Manufacturing Company.'

The claimant took an appeal to the Circuit Court where a judgment was entered overruling the Commission because the facts found by the Commission did not support the award. From that judgment the employer and insurer perfected this appeal to this court.

The claimant testified that on Saturday, February 25, 1961, he was working alone in the stock room where his duties required that he carry packages containing 20 reams of paper upstairs to the stock room. Each package was approximately two feet long, one foot wide and one foot deep and weighted approximately 100 pounds. It was claimant's duty to move the paper from the receiving dock up one flight of stairs to the stock room. The claimant testified that he picked up a bundle of paper and just as he got it waist high his right foot slipped and the paper started dropping and as he grabbed it he put his back in a twist and that he fell down to his knees with his hands at the top of the paper. The claimant testified that he felt pain immediately in his back and in his lower right abdomen. There was no supervisor at work that day for the claimant to report to so he signed out an went home. After arriving home claimant's wife called Dr. Waxman and at approximately 1 or 1:30 p. m. on Saturday, February 25, 1961, claimant met Dr. Waxman at his office at 4848 Prospect. Thereafter claimant was directed to Menorah Medical Center by Dr. Waxman and admitted as a patient on that same day. Claimant received daily heat treatments to the law back while in the hospital. He was discharged from the hospital on March 7 or 8, 1961, fitted for a brace prescribed by Dr. Waxman and continued to be treated by Dr. Waxman weekly in his office until approximately April 10, 1961. Claimant had no complaints referable to the abdomen at the time of the trial.

On cross-examination claimant identified his signature on employer and insurer's Exhibit No. 1 and testified that he talked to an insurance man who asked him questions about the incident; that the claimant told him the truth to his best knowledge; that the insurance representative wrote down the things claimant told him and thereafter claimant read it and wrote over his signature 'the statement is true to the best of my knowledge.' Claimant testified that 12 days after the alleged accident he told the adjuster that he did not slip, trip or fall while picking up the paper.

The Menorah Medical Center records of claimant's confinement were offered and admitted in evidence as claimant's Exhibit B. The discharge summary sheet shows that claimant was discharged on March 5, 1961, after having been hospitalized for chief complaint of onset of left lower abdominal pain. The progress record indicates the onset of the pain was February 24, 1961.

Dr. David Waxman, the treating doctor, was produced and testified in behalf of claimant that the first complaints were referable to the left lower quadrant and left side and left back; that the major concern was the abdominal pain; that claimant was discharged from Menorah on March 5, 1961; that the doctor thereafter saw him at his office on March 7 and March 10, 1961. The doctor testified that he last saw the claimant for this condition on March 10, 1961. Dr. Waxman had no record of prescribing a back brace for the claimant.

The evidence offered in behalf of the employer and insurer touching upon the issues in this appeal, was by witnesses Charles Henry Arnspiger, claimant's supervisor and Eugene Louie Wulf, claims adjuster for the insurer, and Dr. Paul Joseph Centner.

Mr. Arnspiger testified that the reams of paper come 10 to a carton; that the carton size is 11"'X17"'X12"' and would weigh approximately 40 to 50 pounds. The claimant reported to Mr. Arnspiger on February 25, 1961, that he had injured himself the day before and had reinjured himself the morning of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Swillum v. Empire Gas Transport, Inc., 13924
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • September 18, 1985
    ...reached the result it did. Strohmeyer v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., 396 S.W.2d 1, 3 (Mo.App.1965); Lashbrook v. Clipper Manufacturing Co., 377 S.W.2d 785, 787[1, 2] (Mo.App.1964). In Page, 686 S.W.2d 528, the employee's "[b]lood alcohol level was 232 mg.%" at the time he was hospitali......
  • Gordon v. Puritan Chemical Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • September 2, 1966
    ...necessarily involves a choice between conflicting factual statements. The claimant compares this case to Lashbrook v. Clipper Manufacturing turing Co., Mo.App., 377 S.W.2d 785, and other cases in which the employer and insurer have resisted a claim by introducing a claimant's prior inconsis......
  • Ricks v. H. K. Porter, Inc.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • March 10, 1969
    ...Stave Co., Mo.App., 417 S.W.2d 693; Miranda v. American Refrigerator Transit Co., Mo.App., 392 S.W.2d 413; Lashbrook v. Clipper Mfg. Co., Mo.App., 377 S.W.2d 785. And the court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party. Lashbrook and other cases cited. The C......
  • Sommer v. Sommer & Hartstein, 65427
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • December 6, 1994
    ...claimant against his interest near the time of the alleged injury is persuasive evidence against him. See Lashbrook v. Clipper Manufacturing Company, 377 S.W.2d 785 (Mo.App.1964). Furthermore, the Commission's finding is supported by the testimony of board certified cardiologist Dr. Wolff. ......

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