Lunsford v. St. John's Hospital
| Decision Date | 29 June 1937 |
| Docket Number | 24,432 |
| Parties | WILLIAM T. LUNSFORD, Employee, Respondent, v. ST. JOHN'S HOSPITAL, Employer, ROYAL INDEMNITY CO., Insurer, Appellants |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis. Division No 8. Honorable Frank Landwehr, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
Jefferson D. Hostetter
This is an action brought on November 8th, 1935, by claimant, William T. Lunsford, before the Workmen's Compensation Commission, against St. John's Hospital, Employer, and Royal Indemnity Company, Insurer, to recover compensation for injuries resulting in the permanent partial loss of the use of his left toot and for necessary medical expenses incurred thereby.
The claimant had been in the employ of the said hospital for some years as cook or chef, and, according to testimony given by him, he noticed on September 6th, l935, a water blister under his little toe where it joins onto the foot, and he got a sterilized needle, opened it and let the water out and in a couple of days it was practically healed up and that he put mercurochrome on it each night and that prior to the time when he bumped his little toe on the outside against the iron leg of the table on the 10th or 12th of September, while at work frying steak; the blister had healed up with no pain about it and had become perfectly normal and all right. The bumping occurred between 9 and 10 a.m. and he further testified that it was a heavy blow and stung all through, like the bone or something, stinging of the bone like; that the pain continued but was not as bad as right at the time when he had the bump; that he looked at it later in the day and also after he got home when his wife and son also saw it; that it hurt and stung like and was swollen with a kind of a red and spotted condition on the first joint on the side of the toe; that he continued to work and that it continued to get worse while he was working, until the 22nd of September, when it was swollen up to the ankle; that up to that time he had been bathing it in Lysol water; that he was losing weight and getting quite weak; that after staying home for a couple of days he entered the hospital on the 25th of September and the next day was examined by Dr. Hammond who treated him every day for two weeks and then Dr. Glennon was called in and amputated the toe on the 15th of October.
Claimant's wife testified that on the 10th or 12th of September, 1935, her husband came home from work about 7 p.m., limping; that he took off his shoes and socks and she looked at his left foot and saw something was wrong; that the left side down by the little toe was red looking and slightly discolored; that there was nothing wrong with his feet before; that he had never complained of his feet; that he always took off his shoes and socks at night; that she had occasion to look at his feet; that she got his slippers for him and would change his socks most every night; that he said he had bumped his toe in the kitchen on the table and that on September 22nd she went to the hospital and told one of the Sisters about the bumping of the toe and that her husband was in an awful condition and didn't sleep well at night and was losing weight.
The Referee held that the blister of September 6th should be, and was, disregarded as not arising out of or in the course of the employment, and allowed compensation on account of the accident which occurred on or about September 10th, 1935, which, on a review by the members of the board, was affirmed. On appeal to the circuit court by the employer and insurer the action of the Workmen's Compensation Commission in awarding compensation was affirmed and the cause is brought to this Court by appeal for review.
Counsel for the employer and insurer makes the sole point that there was no substantial, or competent evidence adduced to support the award.
The claimant did, in his original and his amended claim, seek to recover compensation for the blister which appeared on September 6th, and the later injury of hitting the toe on the iron table leg, which, according to the testimony of claimant and his wife, occurred on September 10th or 12th.
The position of counsel for the employer and insurer may be succinctly stated as follows: that the cause of the employee's disability was the result of an osteomyelitis or infection of the bone which was in the distal end of the metatarsal bone of the left foot and the lower or proximal joint of the little toe, and that in the opinion of the employee's doctor, trauma could cause or aggravate an osteomyelitis, and the injury of September 10th, 1935, could have caused or aggravated such a condition as they found when they first examined employee, but whether the accident of the 10th, did in fact cause or aggravate the condition they could not state, and that, inasmuch as medical proof had been made by the employer and insurer to the effect that the employee had a bone infection (osteomyelitis) that first manifested itself by the appearance of a blister at the site of the infection on the sole of the foot at the head of the fifth metatarsal bone, that the natural progression of such an infection would cause the disability employee suffered, with or without trauma, so that having this infection prior to the accident of September 10th even if this accident could be said to have aggravated the condition, the end result would not be changed by such aggravation, because once a bone is infected, as in osteomyelitis, it becomes dead, and it is necessary to remove it, and this becomes necessary regardless of any aggravation.
We concede the correctness of the proposition of law contended for by counsel for the appealing employer and insurer to the effect that in the absence of any substantial competent evidence to support the award of compensation it cannot be permitted to stand. On the other hand, it is contended by counsel for the claimant (employee) that certain propositions of law governing the action of a reviewing court in passing on cases originating before the Workmen's Compensation Commission, are sound and should be observed. These propositions of law are as follows:
On appeal from an Award of the Compensation Commission, the reviewing court must review the evidence in the light most favorable to the Award, and draw all reasonable inferences of fact from the evidence adduced in support of the Award. All reasonable inferences must be drawn from the evidence to support the Findings and Award of the Workmen's Compensation, and all testimony unfavorable to the Award, must be disregarded. Elihinger v. Wolf House Furnishing Co., (Mo. App.) 230 Mo.App. 648, 72 S.W. 2d 144, affirmed (Mo. Sup.) 337 Mo. 9, 85 S.W. 2d 11; Bicanic v. Kroger Grocery & Baking Co., (Mo. App.) 83 S.W. 2d 917; Kaiser v. H. C. Merry, Inc., (Mo. App.) 79 S.W. 2d 474; Kizak v. Medart Co., (Mo. App.) 93 S.W. 2d 65.
The Findings of the Compensation Commission are conclusive on appeal if supported by sufficient competent evidence, or if the competent evidence is conflicting; and this is true even though the sufficient competent evidence is slight. Section 3342, R. S. Mo. 1929 (Mo. Stat. Ann., Sec. 3342, p. 8275); Kizak v. Medart Co., (Mo. App.) 93 S.W. 2d 65; Duckworth v. City of Macon, (Mo. App.) 63 S.W. 2d 206; Gantz v. Brown Shoe Co., (Mo. App.) 90 S.W. 2d 168; Gleason v. Titanium Pigment Co., (Mo. App.) 93 S.W. 2d 1039; Donahue v. Adams Transfer & Storage Co., (Mo. App.) 230 Mo.App. 215, 88 S.W. 2d 432.
An award of the Workmen's Compensation Commission has the force of a verdict of a jury, and in the same way becomes a basis for a court judgment; the Findings of Fact and the Award of the Commission are in the nature of a special verdict. Kizak v. Medart Co., (Mo. App.) 93 S.W. 2d 65; Noto v. Hemp & Co., (Mo. App.) 231 Mo.App. 982 83 S.W. 2d 136; Moore v. Federated Metals Corp., (Mo. App.) 83 S.W. 2d 208; Snavely v. Delmar Hotel Co., (Mo. App.) 84 S.W. 2d 188; Gleason v. Titanium Pigment Co., (Mo. App.) 93...
To continue reading
Request your trial