McBride v. J. R. Simplot Co.

• Citation: 441 P.2d 723,92 Idaho 274
• Decision Date: 02 April 1968
• Docket Number: No. 10067,10067
• Parties: Wilda E. McBRIDE, Claimant-Appellant, v. J. R. SIMPLOT COMPANY and Argonaut Northwest Insurance Company, Defendants-Respondents.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Idaho

Page 723

441 P.2d 723

92 Idaho 274

Wilda E. McBRIDE, Claimant-Appellant, v. J. R. SIMPLOT COMPANY and Argonaut Northwest Insurance Company, Defendants-Respondents.

No. 10067.

Supreme Court of Idaho.

April 2, 1968.

McClenahan & Greenfield, Boise, for appellant.

Moffatt, Thomas, Barrett & Blanton, Boise, for appellee.

SMITH, Chief Justice.

Appellant challenges the decision of the Industrial Accident Board denying her workmen's compensation benefits for an alleged back injury which, she asserts, was caused by an accident arising out of and in the course of her employment by respondent, J. R. Simplot Company.

Appellant raises the single issue, that the findings of the board are not supported by substantial competent evidence in that, though positive evidence adduced by the testimony of appellant conflicts with asserted negative evidence adduced by the testimony of other witnesses, nevertheless the board erred in denying compensation inasmuch as positive evidence supports appellant's contention of her entitlement to compensation.

About midnight August 22, 1966, appellant cut her thumb while working in the food processing division of her employer. She thereupon left the immediate area of her work and complained of feeling somewhat sick and light-headed, but she did not faint. The 'lead lady,' appellant's supervisor, testified that she followed appellant, helped her to sit down on the floor, and ordered a stretcher; that two men, co-employees, placed appellant on the stretcher; that appellant was taken through a sliding door, placed in a station wagon and taken to a hospital.

At the hospital, the attending physician noticed a bruised area in appellant's hip region; he stated, 'there was some ecchymosis over the lower back * * * but I could not comment as to its significance or * * * duration.'

Appellant's medical history for some six years prior to August 22, 1966, shows that she had had four back injuries for which she was hospitalized twice and treated on many occasions; also shows a continuous history of pains and aches in the area of her back; also, that attending physicians felt that appellant overemphasized or exaggerated her symptoms.

Testimony of four witnesses related to the chain of events which occurred after appellant sustained the thumb injury until she arrived at the hospital. Those witnesses stated that appellant made no comment as to any bumping or dropping, or injury to her back, nor did they observe any such bumping despite close observation. Appellant's testimony in that regard is to the contrary.

Appellant, after she had cut her thumb and had left her immediate work area, feeling somewhat sick and light-headed, stated she fell to her knees, thereby straining her back. Such testimony conflicts with the lead lady's testimony referred to hereinbefore.

At the hearing, appellant testified that when she felt faint she slumped into the arms of two attendants; that she was bumped on the ground while three attendants carried her on a stretcher to the station wagon; also, that she was bumped on the tail gate when being put into the station wagon.

The witnesses who observed the events also testified concerning the stretcher used in moving appellant. In that regard the board found, 'These observers also testified the canvas-bottomed stretcher was on four six-inch legs, thus making it difficult for her (appellant) to touch the ground or the level base of the station wagon.'

All of the lay witnesses who aided and assisted appellant onto the stretcher, into the station wagon and to the hospital testified from first hand knowledge concerning all of the happenings or evidence having to do with the moving of appellant. They testified that at no time during those events was appellant bumped on the ground or on the station wagon. One witness who was standing within close proximity testified that the men who loaded her onto the stretcher and into the station wagon were 'very careful.' This witness was about four feet away and looking directly toward the station wagon, with a side view of all of the activities.

The aforementioned witnesses were in a position to, and they did, observe appellant from the time of the thumb injury until she arrived at the hospital. All affirmatively stated that appellant was not bumped or dropped during those maneuvers.

Appellant related different versions of the alleged accident to physicians. She hold her immediate attending physician that she 'may' have slipped and bumped her back on leaving her employer's plant after the thumb injury. She told another physician that the injury to her back occurred when she 'had a spell of light-headedness and slipped to the ground, injuring her back.' She told still another physician that her back had been injured when she was placed in the station wagon or during her trip to the...