Nellis v. Quealy

• Decision Date: 05 February 1946
• Docket Number: 46801.
• Citation: 21 N.W.2d 584,237 Iowa 507
• Parties: NELLIS v. QUEALY et al.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

21 N.W.2d 584

237 Iowa 507

NELLIS v. QUEALY et al.

No. 46801.

Supreme Court of Iowa

February 5, 1946

Behearing Denied April 5, 1946.

Thomas M. Healy, of Fort Dodge, and Miller, Huebner & Miller, of Des Moines, for defendants-appellants.

Mitchell & Mitchell, of Fort Dodge, for claimant-appellee.

MULRONEY Justice.

Claimant Vern Nellis, sought workmen's compensation from his employer, S. R. Quealy, and the latter's insurer Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company. The claim was for partial loss of vision in claimant's eye, resulting, as claimant alleged, from some material falling into his eye while he was cleaning and scraping his employer's dump truck. The arbitration hearing before the deputy industrial commissioner resulted in a denial of the claim, but upon review the industrial commissioner reversed this decision and made an award in favor of claimant for $15 a week for 50 weeks with interest and doctor bills. Upon the insurer's appeal to the District Court of Webster County, Iowa, the commissioner's award was affirmed and the insurer appeals to this court.

Defendants state that sole question on this appeal is as to the causal connection between the injury to claimant and his loss of vision. Defendants argue 'that there is not sufficient competent evidence in the record to support the industrial commissioner's finding and the district court's affirmance thereof that there was a causal connection between the loss of vision in appellee's left eye and any injury sustained by him out of and in the course of his employment.

We turn to the review of the testimony contained in the commissioner's opinion:

'In the early afternoon of December 3, 1943, the date of the alleged injury, the claimant with the use of a putty knife and wire brush was scraping and cleaning rust, paint scales and debris from the underside of a truck body which was raised to a dumping position in order that he could better see his work and while looking up the testified that something got in his left eye. He rubbed his eye which pained him and it became inflamed, but he continued to work. Later the same afternoon he report the incident to his boss, who told him to go see a doctor. However, he continued working until around five o'clock in spite of the alleged pain and discomfort.

'The claimant testified, as did his wife, that he had never experienced trouble with his eyes of any nature at any time prior to December 3, 1943.

'The next day, December 4, 1943, he did not go to work. Effort to get an appointment with an eye doctor failed, but he did go see Dr. Walker, a chiropractor, who had previously treated his neck, for another adjustment or treatment, and was in hopes the doctor could tell if anything was in his eye. While there Dr. Walker observed the inflamed condition and examined the eye, observing numerous brown spots back deep under and on the top of the eyeball. Dr. Walker told Mr. Nellis that he should see an eye specialist. Upon his return home his wife again attempted to get an appointment with either one of three eye men in Ft. Dodge, but it was one week later or on December 11th before he could get an appointment. During that week home remedies consisting of cold and hot applications were applied without results, and on Saturday, December 11th, he saw Dr. Chase, who examined the claimant's eye and prescribed medicine. The claimant followed the doctor's instructions in using the prescriptions and three or four days later he called the doctor and told him the eye was no better. He continued the same treatment and on December 18, 1943, claimant went back to Dr. Chase's office, who could not see him and through his office girl was instructed to continue with the same medicine.

'It was not until January 14th, 1944, six weeks after the eye injury or approximately five weeks before the eye was examined again by a physician, when Dr. Martin made an examination and diagnosed the condition as due to ulcers of the cornea and an iritis, which he treated from two to three times per week until the condition was relieved and the patient fitted with glasses for the correction of impaired vision of the affected eye some four or five months later.'

The medical testimony was to the effect that claimant's loss of vision was caused by scar tissue resulting from ulcers but Dr. Martin testifying for claimant and Dr. Chase testifying for defendant differed as to the probable cause of the ulcers. The claimant testified his eye has pained him all the time since the injury.

Dr. Martin testified: 'He told me he thought something got in his eye and he had gone to Dr. Chase, and if I recall correctly, he was there on one visit * * *.

'Q. Now in your opinion could the condition you discovered there be caused by something getting into the eye or striking the eye? A. It could have. As a matter of fact it is true ulcers are frequently caused by something getting in the eye or striking the eye. * * * He had corneal ulcers. * * * You don't get any ulcers that are noninfected ulcers, but as the ordinary run of things most of you get a history of foreign body either lodging in the eye, which is probably the more common, or something which would denude the cornea. * * *

'Q. To sum up the discussion about ulcers, one of the most common things in producing an ulcer is getting something in the eye? A. That is right.'

Dr. Martin was of the opinion that ordinarily, if something lodged in the eye sufficient to cause the ulcer, it would have to be removed, but sometimes the foreign body was washed out by tears. He found no foreign body in the eye when he examined him but when he was asked if he found any evidence of a foreign substance 'having been lodged there', he replied: 'That I couldn't say. I wouldn't know that. He told me about work, something flew...