Sandoval v. Industrial Commission
| Decision Date | 17 June 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,CA-IC,1 |
| Parties | Manuel M. SANDOVAL, Petitioner, v. The INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION of Arizona and Magma Copper Company, Respondents. 54. |
| Court | Arizona Court of Appeals |
Chris T. Johnson, Phoenix, for petitioner.
Twitty, Sievwright & Mills, by John F. Mills, Phoenix, for respondent Magma Copper Co.
The Petitioner herein seeks certiorari to set aside an award of the Industrial Commission denying compensation for hernia.
The Petitioner, Manuel M. Sandoval, an underground motorman employed by respondent employer hurt his lower back on August 23, 1964. The accident occurred while he was descending a ladder. He slipped because the rungs were wet, caught himself and hung suspended for some time. He reported at the Employer's Hospital to W. W. Forbes, M.D. who disgnosed the condition as a low back strain. Dr. Forbes examined him again on August 31, 1964, and noted tenderness in the lower back at the level of the S--1 sacral joint and over the lower area of the sacrum with pain radiating to the left groin area.
Petitioner testified that he suffered pain in his back and in the front groin area of the body and complained to his partner Richard Grabe, to his company foreman and to Dr. Forbes.
Howard W. Finke, M.C., Chief Surgeon at the Employer's Hospital saw the petitioner on October 15, 1964. The petitioner had generalized complaints of pain in his left groin, back and buttocks, which he stated became more intense whenever he was chilled.
On November 2, 1964, the petitioner reported complaints to Dr. Finke of a burning pain and a slight bulging in the left lower inguinal region. Dr. Finke's examination confirmed this bulging condition and noted also an enlarged inguinal ring suggestive of a beginning hernia.
On November 6, 1964, Dr. Finke again examined the petitioner, and there was definitely evidence of a left inguinal hernia and a slight bulging also in the right inguinal area. During this entire period, the petitioner was receiving treatment for his back injury, which had aggravated and made symptomatic a pre-existing arthritic condition.
The employer on November 8, 1964, denied liability for the hernia condition. The Commission held a hearing on the compensability of the hernias, at Superior, Arizona, on April 23, 1965.
At this hearing the Commissionw as represented by counsel, the company was represented by counsel, and the claimant appeared for himself. The claimant is of Mexican descent and speaks no English. The union president acted as interpreter for the claimant and all statements attributed to the claimant were translated by him.
Following the hearing, the referee issued his report dated May 6, 1965, finding that the accident of August 23, 1964 did not cause the claimant's left or right inguinal hernias.
On June 4, 1965, the Commission adopted the report and issued its final award finding that the accident of August 23, 1964 did not cause either of the petitioner's hernias and denied responsibility for them. The petitioner thereupon filed this application for Writ of Certiorari to review the order of the Commission.
The requirements governing compensation for hernia are contained in Arizona Revised Statutes Section 23--1043 and this provision has been held to be sui generis. Williams v. Industrial Commission (1949) 68 Ariz. 147, 202 P.2d 898. As set forth in the statute, the conditions for compensability require: an industrial accident, as an immediate causative factor calling attention to the hernia, accompanying pain and the communication of these facts to one or more persons. (Morris v. Industrial Commission, 3 Ariz.App. ---, 414 P.2d 996, Filed 3 June 1966). In construing these requirements, it has been held to be the policy that they be given a liberal construction in favor of the injured workman. Consolidated Vultee Aircraft Corporation v. Smith (1945) 63 Ariz. 331, 162 P.2d 425.
In this case the Commission has found that the accident did not cause the hernial condition of the petitioner. The only testimony presented was that of the claimant and Dr. Finke. Medical testimony concerning causation was through Dr. Finke only. Dr. Finke testified as to the petitioner's left inguinal hernia that it is possible that the hernia could have developed spontaneously without any traumatic or other motivating force; but he also testified that it was also possible that the accident of August 6, 1964 could have precipitated or caused the hernia to develop....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hardison, In re
...favor of the workman. Industrial Commission v. Pacific Employers Ins. Co., 118 Colo. 496, 197 P.2d 157, 158; Sandoval v. Industrial Commission, 3 Ariz,.app. 449, 415 P.2d 463, 464. Nevertheless, the courts are not free under the guise of construction to extend the beneficent purpose of the ......
-
Chalupa v. Industrial Commission, 1
...Kay v. Industrial Commission, Supra; Romero v. Industrial Commission, 11 Ariz.App. 5, 461 P.2d 181 (1969); Sandoval v. Industrial Commission, 3 Ariz.App. 449, 415 P.2d 463 (1966). The award is EUBANK, and JACOBSON, JJ., concur. 1 The May 14 date was selected because respondent had failed to......
-
City of Tucson v. Indus. Comm'n of Ariz.
...hernia statute is showing an immediate and apparent connection between the injury and the workplace. See Sandoval v. Indus. Comm'n, 3 Ariz.App. 449, 451, 415 P.2d 463, 465 (1966); see also Arizona Workers' Compensation Handbook § 5.4.3, at 5–16 (Ray Jay Davis et al. eds., 1992). ¶ 14 We int......
-
City of Tucson v. Indus. Comm'n of Ariz.
...hernia statute is showing an immediate and apparent connection between the injury and the workplace. See Sandoval v. Indus. Comm'n, 3 Ariz.App. 449, 451, 415 P.2d 463, 465 (1966) ; see also Arizona Workers' Compensation Handbook § 5.4.3, at 5–16 (Ray Jay Davis et al. eds., 1992). ¶ 14 We in......