Penn-Dixie Steel Corp. v. Savage, PENN-DIXIE

• Docket Nº: No. 2-578A161
• Citation: 390 N.E.2d 203, 180 Ind.App. 627
• Case Date: May 29, 1979
• Court: Court of Appeals of Indiana

Page 203

390 N.E.2d 203 180 Ind.App. 627 PENN-DIXIE STEEL CORPORATION, Appellant-Defendant,
v.
Cascar L. SAVAGE, Appellee-Plaintiff. No. 2-578A161. Court of Appeals of Indiana, First District. May 29, 1979.

Page 204

Robert C. Rupp, Stewart, Irwin, Gilliom, Fuller & Meyer, Indianapolis, for appellant-defendant.

Richard L. Russell, Bayliff, Harrigan, Cord & Maugans, Kokomo, for appellee-plaintiff.

LYBROOK, Judge.

Review is sought by Penn-Dixie Steel Corporation (Penn-Dixie) from an affirmative award granted by the Full Industrial Board of Indiana in favor of Cascar L. Savage (Savage) for temporary total disability, resulting from injuries received by Savage in the course of his employment. Penn-Dixie claims that the Board's decision was contrary to law.

We affirm.

[180 Ind.App. 628] Savage was employed by Penn-Dixie. He was injured at work when a hot steel wire which he was working on broke, and a loose end of the wire flipped around, striking and burning him on the back, stomach and groin. Savage also alleged that he sustained a hernia while dodging the wire. Penn-Dixie paid for Savage's medical expenses connected with the injuries, and also paid him temporary total disability benefits for 511/7 weeks of work that he missed due to his injuries. Subsequently, Savage returned to work, but was unable to continue working due to a mental condition allegedly precipitated by the work-related injury.

As a result of his inability to work, Savage filed a Form 9 Application for the adjustment of his compensation claim with the Industrial Board of Indiana. He alleged in the application that he was totally disabled as a result of severe mental disturbances caused by his burns and hernia, which occurred in the accident in the course of his employment. A single member of the Industrial Board found that Savage was totally disabled from performing any employment, and that 50 percent of his disability was attributable to, and resulted from, his work-related injury.

As a result of the award, Penn-Dixie filed an application for review before the Full Industrial

Page 205

Board. The Full Industrial Board found Savage 100 percent disabled, all attributable to his work-related injury. The Board determined that he should recover continued temporary total disability benefits from Penn-Dixie until such benefits terminated in accordance with the Workmen's Compensation Law of Indiana.

The award of the Full Industrial Board prompted Penn-Dixie to file an Assignment of Errors and Notice of Appeal to this court. Therein, Penn-Dixie alleged that the award of the Board was contrary to law. Such an allegation is sufficient to present for review to this court both the sufficiency of the findings of fact utilized to sustain the award, and the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the findings of fact. ¹

This case presents a unique factual "twist", in that two injuries were alleged to have occurred simultaneously in the work-related accident: (1) the burns which Savage suffered, and to which Penn-Dixie stipulated, [180 Ind.App. 629] and (2) the hernia that Savage alleges he suffered. Either of the injuries could conceivably have caused Savage's disability.

The problem arises because the findings of fact by the Industrial Board do not state whether Savage's disability was causally connected to the burns or the hernia, nor do they state whether or not his disability arose out of, and in the course of, his employment. Penn-Dixie contends, therefore, that the evidence was not sufficient to sustain the Board's award. They feel that, although there was adequate proof to causally link Savage's disability with his hernia repair, there was not sufficient evidence of probative value to prove that Savage's hernia occurred in the work-related accident. Furthermore, although Penn-Dixie stipulates that Savage's burns occurred in the work-related accident, they feel that sufficient evidence was not presented to demonstrate any causal link between the burns suffered and Savage's disability.

The actual issues to be decided in this case are:

(I) Whether the findings of fact are sufficient to sustain the conclusion that Savage's present condition is the result of the accident arising out of, and in the course of, his employment.

(II) Whether the evidence presented to the Industrial Board is sufficient to sustain the findings of fact that Savage is disabled and that such disability arose out of, and in the course of, his employment.

I.

As a result of the Board's meagre findings of fact Penn-Dixe contends that the findings were not sufficient to sustain the determination that Savage's disability arose out of, and in the course of, his employment. They further feel that his award was unwarranted.

It was stated in TRW, Inc., Ross Gear Division v. West, (1973) 155 Ind.App. 495, 293 N.E.2d 517, 518, ² that "(T)he Board's Findings of Fact in support of its decision must be specific enough with respect to contested issues to enable a reviewing court to intelligently review the Board's decision." This court explicitly defined what [180 Ind.App. 630] is required in satisfactory findings of fact when it stated that an adequate finding of facts:

"(I)s a simple, straightforward statement of what happened. A statement of what the Board finds has happened; not a statement that a witness, or witnesses, testified thus and so. It is stated in sufficient Relevant detail to make it mentally graphic, i. e., it enables the reader to picture in his mind's eye what happened. And when the reader is a reviewing court the statement must...