Maryland Casualty Co. v. Industrial Commission of Utah
Decision Date | 09 May 1929 |
Docket Number | 4801 |
Court | Utah Supreme Court |
Parties | MARYLAND CASUALTY CO. et al. v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF UTAH et al |
Original proceeding by the Maryland Casualty Company and another against the Industrial Commission of Utah and Margaret Reeves to review an award under the Workmen's Compensation Act in favor of last named defendant.
AWARD ANNULLED.
Bagley Judd & Ray, of Salt Lake City, for plaintiffs.
George P. Parker, Atty, Gen., and M. Logan Rich, Asst. Atty. Gen for defendants.
This proceeding is to review an award of compensation made by the Industrial Commission under the Workmen's Compensation Act (Comp. Laws 1917, §§ 3061-3165, as amended) in favor of Margaret Reeves, upon findings that she sustained an accidental injury to her back in the course of her employment by S. H. Kress & Co. in its store at Salt Lake City, which resulted in her disability.
The award is assailed upon the grounds (1) that there was no substantial evidence to support the finding of the commission that the disability of the employe was caused by, or was the result of, an accident, and (2) that the claim was barred by the statute of limitations. The evidence of the accident and its causal connection with the disability is brief and undisputed. At noon on October 12, 1926, the employe, in the course of her employment, was going down stairs to her work when she slipped and fell and struck upon her back. She thought the injury not serious, and declined to go to a physician. She worked the afternoon of the day of the accident, but remained at home for the succeeding three days. She then resumed work, and continued in her employment until December 19, 1927, when she discontinued work. On June 23, 1928, she filed her application for compensation. She testified that when she fell she struck her back, that since that time she had some trouble with her back, and that it has been growing progressively worse; in December, 1927, she was operated on for appendicitis, which gave her no relief, and that since she has been under the care of Dr. Van Scoyoc.
Dr. Van Scoyoc testified that he first examined the employe on February 28, 1928; that she gave him a history of having been sick for quite a while and of being in the County Hospital to have her appendix out; that she had not been relieved by the operation; that she had thereafter been treated by Dr. Alexander, who thought he found something in her lung, and he sent her down to the witness for examination with special reference to the lungs. Dr. Van Scoyoc examined her, and thought he found some sort of a mild infection in her right lung, but could not prove it without an extensive study of X-rays. He stated:
Upon being asked if he would care to venture an opinion whether her trouble in her back was the result of the fall, the doctor replied:
It was then agreed that Dr. Van Scoyoc should obtain X-ray pictures, consult with Dr. D. K. Allen, and submit in writing his opinion as to the present disability of the employe and the cause thereof. Later a report of X-ray examination dated August 3, 1928, was filed with the commission as follows:
Drs. Van Scoyoc and Allen signed and filed a report dated August 8, 1928, as follows:
On August 20, 1928, without any further evidence or medical reports concerning the nature of the physical condition of the employe, or the cause thereof, the commission made its findings to the effect that the employe in the course of her employment sustained an accidental injury resulting in sacroiliac arthritis, causing disability on and after December 19, 1927, and awarded compensation from that time.
We think the evidence is insufficient to support a finding that the employe is suffering from a disability caused by the accidental fall. The evidence amounted to only a suspicion that she was affected with sacroiliac arthritis. The doctors were unable to make a definite diagnosis, and recommended further observation. The physical cause of her disability is therefore left in doubt. The accident occurred over a year before the disability. Appendicitis and lung infections were shown to have intervened. The doctors were unable to discover from what physical ailment the employe was suffering, or what disabled her. To say from this evidence that she was suffering from sacroiliac arthritis, which was the result of an accidental fall occurring more than one year before, is mere surmise. It is not a conclusion based upon any reasonable basis of fact, and cannot be sustained.
The next question is whether the employe's claim for compensation is barred because not presented or filed with the Industrial Commission within one year from the date of the accident. The accident occurred October 12, 1926, and the claim was filed June 23, 1928. While the Workmen's Compensation ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Landauer v. State Ind. Acc. Comm.
...injury to the date of the accident. (White v. Louisiana Western Ry. Co. 174 La. 308, 140 So. 486; Maryland Casualty Co. et al. v. Industrial Com. of Utah, 74 Utah 170, 278 Pac. 60; Farmer v. Bieber-Goodman Corp., 118 Conn. 299, 172 A. 95, 71 C.J. sec. 793, p. In Clark v. Maryland Casualty C......
-
Clausen v. Minnesota Steel Co.
... ... to review an order of the industrial commission awarding ... compensation to Hilding E. Clausen ... 150 Tenn. 660, 266 S.W. 770; ... Maryland Cas. Co. v. Ind. Comm. 74 Utah 170, 278 P ... ...
-
Moody v. State Highway Dept.
... ... must file claim with Industrial Accident Board within same ... period as required for ... 40, 163 P ... 645, 646; Utah Consolidated Min. Co. v. Industrial ... Commission, 57 ... Co., 174 La. 308, 140 So. 486; Maryland Casualty Co ... et al. v. Industrial Com. of Utah 74 Utah ... ...
-
Di Giorgio Fruit Corporation v. Norton
...Bjorseth v. North Dakota Workmen's Compensation Bureau, 62 N.D. 623, 630, 244 N.W. 515, 517, and Maryland Casualty Company v. Industrial Commission of Utah, 74 Utah 170, 171, 278 P. 60, 62. The weight of authority of the state courts is clearly against the contentions of the The particular ......