Martin v. Monsanto Co., No. 2--473A84

Docket NºNo. 2--473A84
Citation333 N.E.2d 828, 166 Ind.App. 5
Case DateSeptember 17, 1975

Page 828

333 N.E.2d 828
166 Ind.App. 5
Harold D. MARTIN, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
MONSANTO COMPANY and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 2--473A84.
Court of Appeals of Indiana, Second District.
Sept. 17, 1975.
Rehearing Denied Nov. 25, 1975.

[166 Ind.App. 7]

Page 829

Robert F. Gonderman, South Bend, Phil M. McNagny, Jr., Gates, Gates & McNagny, Columbia City, for plaintiff-appellant.

Edward N. Kalamaros, Edward N. Kalamaros & Associates Professional Corporation, South Bend, for defendants-appellees.

BUCHANAN, Judge.

CASE SUMMARY

Plaintiff-Appellant, Harold D. Martin (Martin), seeks review of a negative Award entered by the Full Industrial Board of Indiana (the Board) denying compensation for back injuries sustained while in the employ of Defendant-Appellee Monsanto Company (Monsanto), claiming the Findings of Fact were not specific enough for intelligent review, the Award is contrary to law, and the Board erroneously admitted two pieces of evidence.

We affirm.

CASE HISTORY

Upon initial consideration of this case on February 12, 1975, we found the Findings of Fact originally entered by the Board on March 16, 1973, were 'insufficiently specific to permit intelligent judicial review' and on February 12, 1975, ordered the Board to make findings of the specific facts upon which the negative award was based.

On March 10, 1975, the Board submitted its 'Certification of Specific Findings of Fact', infra, and consideration of this appeal was resumed.

[166 Ind.App. 8] FACTS

The facts and evidence before the Single Hearing Member and reviewed by the Board most favorable to Monsanto and the Award are as follows:

On April 23, 1969, having been in Monsanto's employ for approximately one month, Martin experienced a pain in his lower back while lifting a wooden skid onto a turn-around cart. He testified that as he threw the 4 4 skid onto the cart a pain hit him in the lower back so severe that he went down to his knees. He reported the accident to his foreman who made out the accident report and requested medical aid from the plant nurse who then authorized Martin to see Dr. Stone, Monsanto's plant physician.

The following day, Martin was treated by Dr. Stone, who could find no neurological injury and diagnosed his condition as a lower back syndrome or muscle spasum. Dr. Stone prescribed muscle relaxants, pain medication, and a heat belt to relieve the pain. Martin visited Dr. Stone on three additional occasions, the last being May 15, 1969; and, although Martin complained of increased pain on his final visit, in the doctor's opinion, Martin's injuries did not suggest any permanent impairment as a result of the 'accident' at work on April 23, 1969.

Martin continued to work on a daily basis until August 8, 1969, at which time, while lifting a box, he experienced pain in his lower lumbar area radiating down his leg. He reported this accident to Ron Kettering, the personnel supervisor; and Kettering testified that Martin informed him that this injury was not a reoccurrence of the April incident, but rather the result of an automobile accident. This latter testimony was refuted by Martin, who claimed

Page 830

that no other accident had taken place between April 23 and August 8, 1969.

Thereafter, on August 29, 1969, Martin was admitted to the Osteopathic Hospital, South Bend, Indiana, having requested[166 Ind.App. 9] no further medical assistance from Monsanto. On September 15, 1969, Martin was moved to the Saint Joseph's Hospital, South Bend, Indiana, and his back problem diagnosed by Dr. Dingley as a herniated intervertebral lumbar disc. At this time, Martin also suffered from additional problems of headaches, nausea, and dizziness, separate and distinct from any work-related injury. Martin was in Saint Joseph's Hospital until October 2, 1969, but continued to see Dr. Dingley until September of 1971.

Martin initially gave Dr. Dingley no history of any accidental injury occurring on or about August 8, 1969, but informed the doctor that his pain had started in May of 1969 and that he had sustained an accident at work in May of 1969. Dr. Dingley testified that in his opinion Martin's reptured disc condition resulted from the work-related accident (regardless of its date) and that the pain experienced in the August incident was merely a continuation of the original accident. In his opinion Martin had a 30% permanent partial impairment as a result of the initial accident.

Martin resumed work at Monsanto in January, 1970, and has continued to work intermittently as his back condition has permitted.

Martin's Form 9 claim, originally alleging the industrial accident had occurred on May 9, 1969 (as related to Dr. Dingley), was later amended to the April 23 date; and the amended claim was heard by a Single Hearing Member upon the following stipulation of the parties:

'It is hereby stipulated by and between the parties that the hearing of said cause is to proceed on the merits of said cause, as well as the Special Answer filed by the defendant on the 19th day of May, 1970.

'It is further stipulated by and between the parties that on the 23rd day of April, 1969, the plaintiff was in the employ of the defendant at an average weekly wage of $93.60.

'It is further stipulated that on said date the plaintiff sustained an accidental injury arising out of and in the [166 Ind.App. 10] course of his employment with the defendant herein and that the defendant had knowledge of the said accidental injury on said date; that the sole issue is the question of any temporary total disability resulting from the said accidental injury, whether there was any permanent partial impairment resulting from the said accidental injury of April 23, 1969, and whether any medical bills incurred by the plaintiff were as a result of the accidental injury of April 23, 1969, and the sole remaining issue is whether the defendant would have a legal obligation to pay any medical bills incurred by the plaintiff which may be shown to have been incurred as a result of causes wholly unrelated to the accident of April 23, 1969, of the plaintiff's employment with the defendant.'

An additional fact considered at the hearing was the pleadings from a negligence suit filed by Martin against the Osteopathic Hospital for a cerebral condition resulting from traction he received there. The uncontested testimony of Dr. Dingley, however, established that the injury therein sustained was unrelated to the lumbar disc syndrome for which Dr. Dingley subsequently treated Martin at the Saint Joseph's Hospital.

Based upon the foregoing evidence, the Hearing Member denied compensation to Martin for any permanent partial disability now present; and Martin filed a Form 16 Application for Review by the Full Board. Pursuant to such hearing and review conducted on January 29, 1973, the Board filed the following Certification of Specific Findings of Fact on March 10, 1975:

'Subsequent to his accidental injury arising out of and in the course of his

Page 831

employment with the defendant, the plaintiff was treated by Dr. R. C. Stone for said injury and Dr. Stone last saw the plaintiff for said injuries on or about May 15, 1969, which date followed the stipulated injury date of April 23, 1969. That as a result of the examination and medical treatment of the injury by Dr. Stone the said doctor stated that plaintiff had neither the symptomatology nor the neurological deficit consistent with herniated intervetebral (sic) disc and that plaintiff's symptoms were consistent with a low back sprain. That as a result of the last [166 Ind.App. 11] examination of the plaintiff by Dr. Stone on May 15, 1969 the said Dr. Stone stated that plaintiff's injuries, as a result of the accident at work on April 23, 1969, suggested neither permanency nor any permanent impairment arising out of the accidental injury while working for the defendant on April 23, 1969.

'That after the accidental injury of April 23,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 practice notes
  • Duncan v. George Moser Leather Co., No. 2-479A112
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • August 28, 1980
    ...to the claimant's contentions or by the presence of evidence adverse to the claimant's contentions. Martin v. Monsanto Co., (1975) 166 Ind.App. 5, 333 N.E.2d In Hilltop Concrete Corp. v. Roach, (1977) Ind.App., 366 N.E.2d 218, 224, Judge Buchanan (now Chief Judge) wrote: "It is the Board wh......
  • NAPA/General Automotive Parts v. Whitcomb, No. 2-1184
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • August 20, 1985
    ...120 N.E. 608." Motor Freight Corp. v. Jarvis (1975), 163 Ind.App. 442, 324 N.E.2d 500, 503; see also Martin v. Monsanto Company (1975), 166 Ind.App. 5, 333 N.E.2d 828, 833; Gentry v. Jordan (1975), 166 Ind.App. 695, 337 N.E.2d 530, 532 ("[W]e may only reverse if reasonable men would have be......
  • Gentry v. Jordan, No. 2--374A66
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • November 24, 1975
    ...Motor Freight Corp. v. Jarvis (1975), Ind.App., 324 N.E.2d 500, 503 (and cases cited therein); Martin v. Monsanto Co. (1975), Ind.App., 333 N.E.2d 828; Lincoln v. Whirlpool Corp. (1972), 151 Ind.App. 190, 279 N.E.2d 596, 599; Tichenor v. Bryant Lumber Co. (1970), 147 Ind.App. 382, 261 N.E.2......
  • Anton v. Anton Interiors, Inc., No. 2--576A177
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • June 27, 1977
    ...witnesses or weigh the evidence heard by the Board to determine for whom it preponderates. Martin v. Monsanto Company (1975), Ind.App., 333 N.E.2d 828. This is an appeal from a negative award of the Industrial Board and may be reversed only if it appears that the Board's decision was errone......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
8 cases
  • Duncan v. George Moser Leather Co., No. 2-479A112
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • August 28, 1980
    ...to the claimant's contentions or by the presence of evidence adverse to the claimant's contentions. Martin v. Monsanto Co., (1975) 166 Ind.App. 5, 333 N.E.2d In Hilltop Concrete Corp. v. Roach, (1977) Ind.App., 366 N.E.2d 218, 224, Judge Buchanan (now Chief Judge) wrote: "It is the Board wh......
  • NAPA/General Automotive Parts v. Whitcomb, No. 2-1184
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • August 20, 1985
    ...120 N.E. 608." Motor Freight Corp. v. Jarvis (1975), 163 Ind.App. 442, 324 N.E.2d 500, 503; see also Martin v. Monsanto Company (1975), 166 Ind.App. 5, 333 N.E.2d 828, 833; Gentry v. Jordan (1975), 166 Ind.App. 695, 337 N.E.2d 530, 532 ("[W]e may only reverse if reasonable men would have be......
  • Gentry v. Jordan, No. 2--374A66
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • November 24, 1975
    ...Motor Freight Corp. v. Jarvis (1975), Ind.App., 324 N.E.2d 500, 503 (and cases cited therein); Martin v. Monsanto Co. (1975), Ind.App., 333 N.E.2d 828; Lincoln v. Whirlpool Corp. (1972), 151 Ind.App. 190, 279 N.E.2d 596, 599; Tichenor v. Bryant Lumber Co. (1970), 147 Ind.App. 382, 261 N.E.2......
  • Anton v. Anton Interiors, Inc., No. 2--576A177
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • June 27, 1977
    ...witnesses or weigh the evidence heard by the Board to determine for whom it preponderates. Martin v. Monsanto Company (1975), Ind.App., 333 N.E.2d 828. This is an appeal from a negative award of the Industrial Board and may be reversed only if it appears that the Board's decision was errone......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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