Scott v. Transwestern Tankers, Inc.

• Decision Date: 26 November 1963
• Docket Number: No. 7295,7295
• Citation: 73 N.M. 219,387 P.2d 327,1963 NMSC 205
• Parties: Jake SCOTT, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. TRANSWESTERN TANKERS, INC., Employer, and Travelers Insurance Co., Insurer, Defendants-Appellants.
• Court: New Mexico Supreme Court

Page 327

387 P.2d 327

73 N.M. 219

Jake SCOTT, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. TRANSWESTERN TANKERS, INC., Employer, and Travelers Insurance Co., Insurer, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 7295.

Supreme Court of New Mexico.

Nov. 26, 1963.

White & Musgrove, Farmington, for appellants.

Webb & Beavers, Farmington, for appellee.

COMPTON, Chief Justice.

This appeal is from a judgment awarding total permanent disability under the Workmen's Compensation Act.

The appellee allegedly suffered accidental injuries to his leg, neck and teeth while employed as a truck driver for the appellant employer. It is admitted that the accident arose out of and in the course of the employment, but the extent of those injuries and the disability resulting therefrom is disputed.

The court found that as a result of the neck injury the appellee was and is now totally disabled from performing his usual duties as a truck driver or any other type of manual labor; that appellee's teeth were so damaged in the accident that it was necessary to remove them; and that appellee should be reimbursed for medical expenses incurred by him. Appellants challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support the findings.

The history of appellee's medical treatment and compensation payments following the accident and injury is briefly reviewed here. After the accident, which occurred on November 3, 1960, appellee was sent to the employer's company doctor, a Dr. Baker, who splinted his left arm, treated the inside of his mouth where it had been cut, observed that his teeth were loose, and x-rayed his back. Dr. Baker gave appellee heat treatment for his back every day except Sunday for about six weeks or until the middle of December, 1960. About November 25th Dr. Baker sent appellee to Dr. Rosalie, a dentist, who pulled his loose front teeth, upper and lower. Subsequently the dentist advised the appellant insurance company that appellee's remaining teeth were still loose and, with its knowledge and permission, pulled them. The appellee testified that for two years prior to the accident he had not seen a dentist and his teeth had been in good condition. On December 15, 1960, Dr. Baker gave the appellee permission to return for a while to his home in Oklahoma.

From the time of the accident appellee had been receiving his weekly compensation check; however, upon arrival in Oklahome he was advised by the insurance company that it would deliver his current compensation check if he would sign a release as Dr. Baker had released him. Appellee refused the offer and did not receive the check. He returned to Farmington about January 1st, and to Dr. Baker, who recommended that he see a bone specialist. At the instance of the appellants, appellee saw Dr. Peterson in Albuquerque and Dr. Krauser in Durango, Colorado, both of whom recommended certain treatments, which appellants refused to authorize. The recommendations of a Dr. Hartz in Farmington were likewise refused by appellants. Appellee then returned to his home in Oklahoma. In the meantime his compensation checks had been started again, but in the middle of February, 1961, they were terminated. Thereafter, at the request of appellants, the appellee saw two additional doctors. About the middle of March, 1961, he went to Dr. Joseph, his family doctor, who gave him shots for headaches as well as therapy treatments and traction such as had been previously recommended by Drs. Peterson and Krauser. These treatments continued every day except Sundays and holidays from March 15, 1961 until shortly before the trial when appellee returned to Dr. Peterson on Dr. Joseph's recommendation that he see a specialist. It was at this time that Dr. Peterson hospitalized appellee and performed a discogram, the results of which furnished the basis for a substantial part of Dr. Peterson's expert testimony.

The rule is well established in this jurisdiction that in determining whether the findings of the trial court are supported by substantial evidence, the evidence, together with all reasonable inferences to be deduced therefrom, must be considered in the light most favorable to the successful party. Cochran v. Gordon, 69 N.M. 346, 367 P.2d 526. Thus viewed, we conclude that the evidence is ample to support...