Lucey Boiler & Mfg. Corp. v. Hicks

• Decision Date: 02 July 1949
• Citation: 222 S.W.2d 19,188 Tenn. 700
• Parties: LUCEY BOILER & MANUFACTURING CORPORATION v. HICKS.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

222 S.W.2d 19

188 Tenn. 700

LUCEY BOILER & MANUFACTURING CORPORATION v. HICKS.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

July 2, 1949

Error to Circuit Court, Hamilton County; L. D. Miller, Judge.

Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Mattie Hicks Claimant, to recover compensation for the death of Arthur Hicks, employee, opposed by the Lucey Boiler & Manufacturing Corporation, employer. From a judgment awarding compensation the employer appeals in error.

Affirmed.

Frazier, Roberts & Weill, Chattanooga, for plaintiff in error.

Maurice M. Weaver, Chattanooga, for defendant in error.

TOMLINSON Justice.

Arthur Hicks died during the course of his employment by Lucey Boiler & Manufacturing Corporation. The trial court found that his death arose out of his employment and awarded his widow, Mattie Hicks, the amount required by the Workmen's Compensation Act. Code, § 6851 et seq. The employer has appealed, and insists that there is no evidence to support this finding.

As recognized by plaintiff in error, in workmen's compensation cases findings of the lower court supported by any material evidence will not be disturbed on appeal. The testimony is considered only for the purpose of ascertaining whether there is any such evidence. Anderson v. Volz Construction Co., 183 Tenn. 169, 173, 191 S.W.2d 436.

Hicks had been working for this employer several years. He was a strong man and appeared to be in good health during this time to within the hour of his death on January 14, 1948. He did his work as usual that day until, during the course of the afternoon, his finger was severely mashed while he was trying to pry a head off of a die with a 50 to 75 pound iron bar.

After first aid treatment, he was driven by a fellow employee to the company's doctor at whose office he arrived within approximately twenty-five minutes after the injury. About half of the last joint of the left ring finger was mashed off, 'and what bone remained was just splintered and slivered', and it was 'bleeding a good deal'. The doctor administered novocain, amputated the finger at this point, and dressed the wound all in the course of probably twenty minutes after arrival. Hicks and his driver then went to his car and started back to his place of employment. Between five and ten minutes afterwards, and while so returning, Hicks suddenly slumped and died almost instantly. This was approximately fifty-five minutes after his finger was injured.

An autopsy was performed and it was discovered that he had died of a ruptured aneurysm of the aorta, being the artery that leads from the heart. The tear was 'about an inch and a half long. It was a jagged tear, it was clean through it and this tear had ruptured directly into the sac around the heart'. This condition had been caused by syphilis eating into the walls of the aorta, thus causing a thinning and weakening of the inner parts of the wall. This condition had existed for several years. A person in that condition may die at any time, and will die suddenly 'if it ruptures into the heart like this one did'. Death may come while the party sleeps. The disease is always fatal.

It was the opinion of the doctor who performed the autopsy that the injury to the finger had nothing to do with Hicks' death and that its happening about fifty-five minutes before his death was a pure coincidence. It is insisted by the employer that there is no evidence that the injury to the finger in any way contributed to Hicks' death.

The insistence of Hicks' widow is that the accident, and its pain excited him, and that he was excited also by watching the doctor perform the amputation; that this excitement raised his blood pressure, and that the increased blood pressure caused the aorta, already weakened by disease, to rupture.

If there is evidence to sustain the insistence that the previous heart ailment was aggravated so as to cause this death at the time it occurred, then it is compensable. Tennessee Eastman Corp. v. Russell, 150 Tenn. 331, 265 S.W. 540; Sanders v. Blue Ridge Glass Corporation, 161 Tenn. 535, 33 S.W.2d 84. But the employer contends that in order to reach this conclusion it is necessary to base such finding upon presumption drawn from presumption as follows: (1) tha Hicks became excited; (2) that the excitement increased his blood pressure; (3) that the increased bood pressure continued until his death; (4) that the increased blood pressure caused the rupture.

Henderson a fellow employee, saw the accident. He testified that when the accident occurred Hicks 'jumped and hollered and grabbed his hand' and appeared to be in pain. Weaver, the employee who drove Hicks to the doctor's office, said that on the way to...