Moore v. Engineering & Sales Co.
| Decision Date | 23 November 1938 |
| Docket Number | 451. |
| Citation | 199 S.E. 605,214 N.C. 424 |
| Parties | MOORE v. ENGINEERING & SALES CO. et al. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Wake County; Herbert E. Olive, Special Judge.
Proceeding for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Roy N. Moore, employee, opposed by the Engineering & Sales Company, employer, and the St. Paul Mercury Indemnity Company, insurance carrier. From a judgment affirming the Industrial Commission's order modifying an award of compensation by the hearing commissioner, the employer and insurance carrier appeal.
Affirmed.
The Supreme Court is bound by Industrial Commission's fact findings, supported by any competent evidence, on appeal from judgment affirming commission's award. Pub.Laws 1929, c 120.
The plaintiff was an employee of the defendant Engineering & Sales Company, at Wilmington, North Carolina, in the construction of a post office building, engaged in plumbing. He was serving as foreman, although his duties required him to do manual labor. On the 13th day of October, 1936 plaintiff and an employee, Sykes, were working together and were the only ones on the job that day. Plaintiff had been told by a superior, Barnes, to lay off all labor, and for Sykes and plaintiff to "handle the job". In compliance with these orders, plaintiff and Sykes were lifting a four inch steel pipe which weighed from 400 to 450 pounds, when plaintiff felt a severe pain in the lower abdomen. Plaintiff says that he could not tell whether he slipped or not because of the pain. He immediately went to Dr. McEachern, who plaintiff says, pronounced it hernia, and bandaged the parts and told him he would have to wear a truss. After his visit to the doctor, plaintiff went immediately to his room and since then has not been able to follow his usual occupation or do any manual labor at all, nor to find any work of the kind that he had been equipped to do before his injury. Plaintiff further testified that he had never had any indication that he was afflicted with hernia before this time, and had no reason to believe that he had hernia; that he had been previously examined by Dr. Cone, who found no hernia, and got an insurance policy which is now in force.
Plaintiff came to Raleigh on October 31st and was examined by Dr. Paul Neal, who found pronounced hernia through the left inguinal ring.
Plaintiff testified that he had been doing the same general type of work but using a different type of material up to that time that he had not lifted pipes of this type or weight before.
Plaintiff said he had pains in his right side as well as the left, but it was the left side that the doctor bandaged up. The first morning he went to see Dr. McEachern he was hurting so badly he could not tell which side and went to him for an examination. Plaintiff now wears a truss, which the Company bought, and has been advised by physicians that he must not do heavy manual labor.
J. P. Sykes testified that he was on the same job with plaintiff. They had laid off some labor there on the job and that increased the work on those remaining there. On October 13, 1936, witness and plaintiff were picking up a four inch pipe, 20 or 22 feet in length, and laying it on a platform. Moore, the plaintiff, "grabbed his side" after they got it on the platform and said he had hurt himself. He went out to the doctor, and when witness saw him next he was bandaged up. The weight of the pipe was 400 or 450 pounds.
Dr. Kemp Neal stated he examined the plaintiff on March 22, 1937, and found at that time he had an inguinal hernia on both sides, the right side being worse than the left. There was a definite bulging at the external inguinal canal on both sides,-came out considerably. Witness did not think plaintiff could do manual labor without danger of jeopardizing his life, in that he might get a strangulation. Witness thought an operation necessary; was of opinion that such hernia as he found existing in plaintiff could be caused by sudden strain or lifting too heavy weight, considering there was a predisposing weakness. When he examined plaintiff in March, witness found a hernia sac on each side but it slipped back; it would come out upon straining but go back into the abdominal cavity. There was a real hernia on the left but it would disappear upon cessation of straining. Witness stated that even with a truss plaintiff would not be able to do the same kind of work or lift weights alleged to have been lifted, because there is a lot of abdominal pressure brought to bear when a person lifts that much weight; that the pressure is tremendous.
On examination by Mr. Lassiter, the witness stated that the opening in the right one was about a half inch in diameter, neck of the sac, and it came down about a half inch into the scrotum. The left one came just to the external ring and jumped back. From his examination there was no way of telling whether or not the enlargement or hernia on either side had been gradual. Tenderness and discoloration, if they existed, had disappeared when he saw the plaintiff. Witness stated that an enlargement of the inguinal ring has a definite meaning in the medical profession as distinguished from hernia.
Dr. McEachern testified that he, on October 13, 1936, examined the plaintiff. Plaintiff gave a history of having done some heavy lifting on October 12th, the day previous, and said he developed a severe pain in the lower left part of his abdomen. Witness examined him for abdominal conditions and for hernia. Witness found an enlargement of the left inguinal ring; with a slight bulge in that area, but no actual protrusion. Witness stated that the medical profession generally recognizes a distinction between an enlargement of the inguinal ring and a hernia or rupture. Subsequently, the witness saw the plaintiff on the 14th, 15th, 17th, and 22d of October, 1936. On two or three of those days the diagnosis and findings were exactly the same as the first day: Normal right and enlarged left. The examination on October 13, 1936, demonstrated a bulging of his abdominal wall, most marked in the region of his left external inguinal ring. Patient was strapped tightly with a pad over the bulging area and was advised to do no heavy lifting.
Witness stated that the enlargement of an inguinal ring in layman's language is the beginning of a rupture; that in this case there was already noticeable to him, on examining the plaintiff, a noticeable bulge; that after treatment that bulge would have continued to grow if he continued to do heavy lifting or work which increased to the same extent his intraabdominal pressure. That he treated the plaintiff by putting on a spring truss and advised an operation. On re-direct examination by Mr. Lassiter, witness stated it would have required a subsequent strain to have produced a real hernia on the left side. In witness' opinion, there was in this case a weakening of the external inguinal ring at that point, allowing a bulge, which could not be construed as a hernia; that a hernia, as usually defined in medicine, means an actual protrusion. Witness supposed it might be a question of degree; that it depended on whether you classify a bulge as a protrusion or not.
Dr. Paul Neal testified that he examined the plaintiff on October 31st and found hernia through the left inguinal ring. He further stated that he saw the plaintiff again in March and at that time he had a hernia on both side. Witness found that the hernia would protrude or slip back according to the degree of abdominal pressure.
Certain stipulations were made by the parties, to which it is not necessary to refer.
Upon the foregoing evidence, the hearing Commissioner of the Industrial Commission found that the plaintiff had sustained an injury by accident, arising out of and in the course of his regular employment, resulting in a hernia on October 12 1936, while lifting one end of...
To continue reading
Request your trial