Penn-Dixie Steel Corp. v. Savage
| Citation | 390 N.E.2d 203,180 Ind.App. 627 |
| Decision Date | 29 May 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 2-578A161,PENN-DIXIE,2-578A161 |
| Parties | STEEL CORPORATION, Appellant-Defendant, v. Cascar L. SAVAGE, Appellee-Plaintiff. |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Indiana |
Robert C. Rupp, Stewart, Irwin, Gilliom, Fuller & Meyer, Indianapolis, for appellant-defendant.
Richard L. Russell, Bayliff, Harrigan, Cord & Maugans, Kokomo, for appellee-plaintiff.
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.
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 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, 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.
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 is required in satisfactory findings of fact when it stated that an adequate finding of facts:
(Emphasis added.) Whispering Pines Home for Senior Citizens v. Nicalek, (1975) Ind.App., 333 N.E.2d 324, 326.
In the case at bar, the findings of fact are indeed skimpy. The Board could have made concise findings of fact that would have made it clear to this court exactly what the Board's award was based on. Unfortunately, the Board did not make such findings.
The findings of fact that the Board supplied state that Savage was burned at work by a hot wire, that his medical expenses were paid, that he received temporary total disability compensation for 511/7 weeks, that Savage suffered from preexisting organic and emotional problems which affected his personality and provided him with a nervous condition rendering him incapable of dealing with stress, that these problems were caused by his general physical and mental make-up and by certain other factors, that he suffered from paranoic depression and cerebrovascular insufficiency, and that he was, as a result, totally disabled from following any gainful employment. However, as mentioned earlier, the Board did not find explicitly that the disability was causally connected to the work-related accident. More specifically, the Board did not find whether the hernia occurred as a result of the work-related accident; therefore, this court does not know whether the Board based its award on the fact that Savage's disability was caused by the burns, which were stipulated to have occurred as a result of the accident, or from the hernia and its repair.
Fortunately, due to the circumstances of the case, the findings of fact by the Board allow us, using our deductive powers, to picture the Board's reasoning and its award in sufficiently relevant detail. 3 The Board found that a work-related accident occurred; they found that Savage was temporarily totally disabled; and, they granted Savage an award. It logically follows that the Board found that Savage's disability arose out of, and in the course of, his employment, lest they would not have granted him an award. Whether the disability was caused by his burns or by the hernia does not make any difference if both can be shown to have arisen from the work-related accident and if both can be shown to be causally related to Savage's disability. Both can be so shown. 4 Since the evidence is sufficient to support an award based on a finding that either of the injuries was causally related to the disability, and that either of the injuries arose out of the accident, the findings of fact herein, though sparse, are sufficient to support the Board's award.
On appeal of a compensation case to this court, the court can only consider the decision of the Full Industrial Board. Warren v. Indiana Telephone Co., (1940) 217 Ind....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Talas v. Correct Piping Co., Inc., 381S52
...by the Board will its decision be disturbed. White v. Woolery Stone Co., Inc., (1979) Ind.App., 396 N.E.2d 137; Penn-Dixie Steel Corp. v. Savage, (1979) Ind.App., 390 N.E.2d 203. Defined in Ind.Code § 22-3-3-4, supra, are four time frames in which the expenses of medical and nursing service......
-
Terkosky v. Ind. Dep't of Educ.
...N.E.2d 337;Indiana Bell Telephone Co., Inc. v. Owens, (1980) Ind.App., 399 N.E.2d 443;Penn–Dixie Steel Corp. v. Savage, (1979) Ind.App. [180 Ind.App. 627], 390 N.E.2d 203;Yunker v. Porter County Sheriff's Merit Bd., (1978) Ind.App. [178 Ind.App. 364], 382 N.E.2d 977;Whispering Pines Home fo......
-
NAPA/General Automotive Parts v. Whitcomb
...to the Board's decision." ); Anton v. Anton Interiors, Inc. (1977), 173 Ind.App. 419, 363 N.E.2d 1286; Penn-Dixie Steel Corp. v. Savage (1979), 180 Ind.App. 627, 390 N.E.2d 203; Duncan v. George Moser Leather Co. (1980), Ind.App., 408 N.E.2d 1332; Talas v. Correct Piping Co., Inc. (1982), I......
-
K-Mart Corp. v. Morrison, K-MART
...support the award. Brown Tire Co. v. Underwriters Adjusting Co. (1991), Ind.App., 573 N.E.2d 901, 903-04; Penn-Dixie Steel Corp. v. Savage (1979), 180 Ind.App. 627, 390 N.E.2d 203, 207, trans. denied. This restriction on the free admissibility of hearsay evidence can only evince an unwillin......