Milholland Sales & Eng'g Co. v. Griffiths, 14392.
| Decision Date | 25 November 1931 |
| Docket Number | No. 14392.,14392. |
| Citation | 94 Ind.App. 62,178 N.E. 458 |
| Parties | MILHOLLAND SALES & ENGINEERING CO. v. GRIFFITHS. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Industrial Board.
Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Iris C. Griffiths, claimant, for the death of her husband, opposed by the Milholland Sales & Engineering Company, employer. The Industrial Board awarded compensation, and the employer appeals.
Reversed.
Ralph B. Gregg, of Indianapolis, for appellant.
James D. Ermston and W. E. Jeffrey, both of Indianapolis, for appellee.
Appellee, the widow of Fern E. Griffiths, filed her application for compensation against the appellant, Milholland Sales & Engineering Company, before the Industrial Board of Indiana, under “The Indiana Workmen's Compensation Act of 1929” (Acts 1929, c. 172, p. 536), alleging among other things, that said Fern E. Griffiths died as a proximate result of personal injuries received by him on the 18th day of March, 1930, by reason of an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment by said appellant.
The application was heard by a member of the board who made a finding and award of compensation to appellee; there was an application for review by the full board, and upon hearing the full board made a finding of facts and entered an award in favor of appellee from which this appeal is taken. The appellant assigns as error that the award is contrary to law.
The sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the finding of facts upon which the award is based, is the only question presented.
It is appellant's contention that the death of appellee's deceased husband was due to a disease (status epilepticus) and that the injury received by the decedent did not in any manner contribute to or hasten his death; that no causal connection existed, or is shown by any evidence; that there is no competent evidence that the injury suffered by the deceased was a contributing factor to his death, nor any evidence from which such an inference can be drawn.
The undisputed evidence establishes the following facts: On June 18, 1930, and for some time prior thereto, Fern E. Griffiths was in the employ of appellant as a machinist; on this day, while discharging the duties of his employment, he was injured by an accident caused by a mandrel rolling from a bench in the place where he was working and striking him on his left foot, causing a contused wound of the great toe with a fracture of the distal phalanx of the end bone; the accident happened about the middle of the forenoon and first aid was administered by a fellow workman at the factory; he was then taken to the doctor who looked after injured employees for the appellant, where the toe was dressed, and he drove home alone, reaching there shortly after noon; that evening he accompanied his wife to church; he returned to the doctor's office for treatment two or three times after June 18th, and on Saturday, June 21st, when the previous dressing was removed by the doctor it was found that the toe nail was loose from the matrix and was only attached by the cuticle; it was removed without the loss of any blood and the toe was again dressed; immediately following the dressing of the toe the deceased had a convulsion; he “came out” of this convulsion for a short time but immediately had another one, and had six or eight convulsions while at the office within an hour's time; between convulsions he was conscious and upon inquiry informed the doctor his wife was downtown, told him where the car was parked, and the doctor sent for the wife (appellee herein), who came to the office; after a conference between the doctor and appellee, the deceased was sent to the hospital, where he continued to have convulsions at intervals for a period of eight days, the convulsions being of epileptic form; he died on the 29th day of June, eleven days after his injury; a post mortem examination was held.
Appellee's theory is that the wound became infected and blood poisoning ensued as a result of the injury, and she asserts that the evidence is such that the Industrial Board was justified in its finding and award, and could reasonably draw the inference that the injury hastened death, and that it cannot be said, as a matter of law, that the finding was arrived at by mere conjecture or guess.
Appellee testified in her own behalf that during the six years she had known the deceased he had never been sick, except that he was troubled some with constipation; that he had never shown any indication of epilepsy or had an epileptic fit; that his great toe after the injury was angry looking and bluish; that this discoloration extended to the leg, but that she did not see the leg only when it was dressed in the hospital; that there was some swelling but it seemed to subside; that there was a discoloration of the leg and groin. Other witnesses, who had known the deceased for periods of time ranging from a year and a half to five or six years, testified that he had the appearance of a strong, healthy man, that he was a steady worker, and had lost no time from disability or sickness.
Two of the witnesses called by appellee were practicing physicians. Neither had ever treated the deceased. One testified to an acquaintanceship of approximately five years and that he had seen and talked with the deceased two or three times a week during that period of time; that he had never heard of his being troubled with any latent...
To continue reading
Request your trial