Lockard v. Parker, 5646.
| Decision Date | 10 December 1947 |
| Docket Number | No. 5646.,5646. |
| Citation | 164 F.2d 804 |
| Parties | LOCKARD v. PARKER et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
I. Duke Avnet, of Baltimore, Md., for appellant.
David R. Owen and C. Ross McKenrick, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Baltimore, Md. (Semmes, Bowen & Semmes and Bernard J. Flynn, U. S. Atty., all of Baltimore, Md., and Ward E. Boote, Chief Counsel, and Herbert P. Miller, Asst. Chief Counsel, both of New York City, United States Employees' Compensation Commission, on the brief), for appellees.
Before PARKER, SOPER and DOBIE, Circuit Judges.
The principal question on this appeal is whether, as the District Judge found, there was substantial evidence to support the conclusion of the Deputy Commissioner that the claimant was not entitled to any compensation in addition to that which he had already received for an injury suffered in the course of his employment by the Maryland Drydock Company. The applicable rule of law in such a case is that the findings of fact of the Deputy Commissioner and the inferences which he draws therefrom in cases under the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C.A. § 901 et seq., if supported by the evidence, are binding upon the courts and may not be set aside because their findings or inferences may be thought to be more reasonable. Cardillo v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 330 U.S. 469, 67 S.Ct. 801.
The claimant was injured on August 11, 1945, when the scaffold slipped on which he was standing while working as a painter on board a vessel afloat in the Patapsco River and, in order to save himself, he grabbed a cable and swung around and struck the back of his neck and head against a bulkhead. The evidence indicates that the blow produced a traumatic neuritis and limitation of the movement of his neck, so that he could not raise and lower his head in an upward and downward plane without pain. He worked for two days after the injury but was unable to continue on account of the severe pain in his neck, and he was allowed compensation for various periods of time ending November 7, 1945, in the aggregate sum of $207.14. He was examined by a physician at the United States Marine Hospital in Baltimore on October 2, 1945, who gained the impression that the disability was more or less permanent in nature and would not be improved by conservative treatment, and that the patient could do light work only in a position where a vertical motion of the head would not be required.
Later the claimant showed symptoms of mental disturbance, and on November 13, 1945, he was committed to the Springfield State Hospital for the Insane where the physicians concluded that he was suffering from schizophrenia of the paranoid type, but that the accident had no connection with the mental disease. Testimony to this effect was given at the Deputy Commissioner's hearing. The claimant was later examined also by two other physicians. One of them, who testified on behalf of the claimant, was of the opinion that the mental condition was caused by the blow, and the other...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stagecrafters Club v. District of Columbia, 1187.
...a correct account of what he has seen and heard. District of Columbia v. Armes, 107 U.S. 519, 2 S.Ct. 840, 27 L.Ed. 618; Lockard v. Parker, 4 Cir., 164 F.2d 804; Occidental Life Ins. Co. v. Lame Elk White Horse, D.C.Mun.App., 74 A.2d 435. Whether or not a witness possesses the requisite men......
-
State v. Moorison
...account of what he has seen and heard. District of Columbia v. Armes, 1883, 107 U.S. 519, 2 S.Ct. 840, 27 L.Ed. 618; Lockard v. Parker, 4 Cir., 1947, 164 F.2d 804; Shupp v. Farrar, 1949, 85 Ohio App. 366, 88 N.E.2d 924; annotations, 26 A.L.R. 1491, 148 A.L.R. 1140. And this is the rule even......
-
Shuler v. Wainwright
...a correct account of matters he has seen or heard, District of Columbia v. Arms, 107 U.S. 519, 2 S.Ct. 840, 27 L.Ed. 618; Lockard v. Parker, 4 Cir., 1948, 164 F.2d 804; Henderson v. United States, 6 Cir., 1955, 218 F.2d 14, 50 A.L.R.2d 754, cert. denied 349 U.S. 920, 75 S.Ct. 660, 99 L.Ed. ......
-
Eisen v. Picard, 71-1217.
...cert denied, 374 U.S. 836, 83 S.Ct. 1887, 10 L.Ed.2d 1058 (1963) (hearsay of witness incompetent to stand trial); Lockard v. Parker, 164 F.2d 804 (4th Cir. 1947) (hearsay of plaintiff who testified at trial). Massachusetts law is essentially identical to the Armes rule. Commonwealth v. Reag......