Leach v. Grangeville Highway District

• Decision Date: 21 February 1935
• Docket Number: 6197
• Citation: 55 Idaho 307,41 P.2d 618
• Parties: ERNEST LEACH, Respondent, v. GRANGEVILLE HIGHWAY DISTRICT and STATE INSURANCE FUND, Appellants
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

41 P.2d 618

55 Idaho 307

ERNEST LEACH, Respondent, v. GRANGEVILLE HIGHWAY DISTRICT and STATE INSURANCE FUND, Appellants

No. 6197

Supreme Court of Idaho

February 21, 1935

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION LAW-CAUSE OF INJURY-EVIDENCE, SUFFICIENCY OF-"ACCIDENT"-AGGRAVATION OF PREVIOUS EYE INJURY-FORMER COMPENSATION-REMOVAL OF EYE-SPECIFIC INDEMNITY.

1. Facts on which compensation award is based need not be established beyond a reasonable doubt, but claimant need only establish cause of his injury by a preponderance of evidence not necessarily to exclusion of other possible causes.

2. Blowing of dust and gravel into highway employee's eye while at work on road tractor resulting in intense irritation and subsequent removal of eye held "accident," and as such, compensable.

3. Where highway employee's eye was removed due to injury received in course of employment, and removal would have been unnecessary except for accident, right of recovery was not affected by fact that eye had been weakened by former accident of same kind and from which employee recovered.

4. Highway employee held entitled to compensation for removal of eye, although he had been paid for 90 per cent loss of vision of same eye in former accident, as against contention that compensation should have been limited to loss of vision or loss of earning power in consequence thereof (I. C. A., sec 43-1113).

APPEAL from the District Court of the Tenth Judicial District, for Idaho County. Hon. Miles S. Johnson, Judge.

Appeal from a judgment affirming an award, in favor of claimant, by the industrial accident board. Affirmed.

Judgment affirmed. Costs awarded to respondent.

Harry J. Hanley and P. C. O'Malley, for Appellants.

Claimant must show that injury was caused by accident, and showing that some thing was possible cause or possible aggravation of old injury is not sufficient. Guess, surmise, conjecture or speculation is not evidence of causal connection. ( Larson v. Ohio Match Co., 49 Idaho 511, 289 P. 992; Hawkins v. Bonner County, 46 Idaho 739, 271 P. 327; Strouse v. Hercules Min. Co., 51 Idaho 7, 1 P.2d 203.)

Where there is no showing of disability to work, award should not be for loss of an eye when claimant had lost greater part of use of eye by previous injury and been paid specific indemnity therefor. (Section 43-1113, I. C. A.; Kelley v Prouty et al., 54 Idaho 225, 30 P.2d 769; Rector v. Roxana Pet. Corp., 108 Okla. 122, 235 P. 183; Wise-Buchanan Coal Co. v. Risco, 150 Okla. 190, 1 P.2d 411.)

John W. Cramer, for Respondent.

The cause of an injury is not required to be proved with absolute certainty. It is sufficient if it is proved to the satisfaction of the board that the accident occurred in the manner claimed by claimant while he is performing labor as an employee and fixes approximately the date of the accident. ( Riley v. City of Boise, 54 Idaho 335, 31 P.2d 968; Roe v. Boise Grocery Co., 53 Idaho 82, 21 P.2d 910; McNeil v. Panhandle Lumber Co., 34 Idaho 773, 203 P. 1068.)

MORGAN, J. Givens, C. J., and Budge, Holden and Ailshie, JJ., concur.

OPINION

MORGAN, J.

November 15, 1933, respondent was employed by Grangeville Highway District as a laborer in the construction and repair of its highways, and had been so employed for about three years prior thereto. That day, as a part of his duty to his employer, he was handling gravel on a road with a caterpillar tractor and grader. The track of the tractor threw up dust and gravel and the wind blew some of it into his left eye, which immediately became inflamed and painful. Prior to this occurrence, and on October 23, or 24, 1933, respondent, while unloading a truck load of gravel on the road, got gravel and dust in his left eye which caused it to become irritated and painful, but it subsided without causing loss of employment, and he did not consult a physician with respect to it.

In February, 1929, while respondent was employed by a man named Green, he suffered an accident which arose out of and in the course of his employment and which caused the loss of about 90 per cent of the vision of his left eye. Green carried workmen's compensation insurance and, because of that injury, respondent was paid for permanent partial disability, consisting of nine-tenths loss of vision of his eye, the sum of $ 1,167.21.

The injury caused by the accident which occurred in 1929 was healed so that it caused respondent no inconvenience, other than from partial loss of vision, but left his eye in condition to be more susceptible to injury by the dust and gravel which got into it in October and November, 1933, than a normal eye would have been.

November 16, 1933, respondent was still suffering from the effects of having dust and gravel blown in his eye the day before and consulted a physician who prescribed medicine for it, which he procured and used as directed. The condition continued to grow worse and, November 23d, he consulted an eye specialist who found it necessary to, and did, November 25th, enucleate the eye.

The hearing before the industrial accident board resulted in an award of compensation to respondent based on the loss of his eye by enucleation and without deduction because he had received compensation for the previous injury. Appeal to the district court resulted in the affirmance of the award, and the case is here on appeal from the judgment affirming it.

Appellants contend: 1. The evidence is insufficient to establish that the loss of respondent's eye was caused by dust and gravel being blown into it; 2. The evidence is insufficient to establish that the dust and gravel got into respondent's eye by accident; 3. If respondent is entitled to compensation for the loss of his eye there should be deducted from the award the amount paid to him because of his partial loss of vision due to his accident in 1929.

The condition of respondent's eye which made necessary its removal is known as iridocyclitis. Expert medical testimony was offered to the effect that while there might have been a recurrence of that condition after the former injury, without the presence of the dust and gravel in the eye, such recurrence was not to be expected after so long a period of time as had elapsed since the accident of 1929. Dr. Gist, the specialist who removed the eye, testified, on cross-examination:

"Q. Well, now, Doctor, in connection with this case wouldn't it be perfectly possible that the eye just in the course of time would gradually weaken and degenerate and this would have happened to Mr. Leach regardless of what he was doing or what occupation he had?

"A. It is possible that he could get a secondary iridocyclitis sure, following his old injury, but it...