Seifert v. Heil Packing Co., 21779.

• Decision Date: 06 September 1932
• Docket Number: No. 21779.,21779.
• Citation: 52 S.W.2d 579
• Parties: SEIFERT v. HEIL PACKING CO. et al.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

52 S.W.2d 579

SEIFERT v. HEIL PACKING CO. et al.

No. 21779.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

September 6, 1932.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Granville Hogan, Judge.

"Not to be officially published."

Proceedings under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Herbert Seifert, claimant, opposed by the Heil Packing Company, employer, and the Globe Indemnity Company, insurer. An award of the Compensation Commission granting compensation was set aside, and the cause remanded by the circuit court, and employer and insurer appeal.

Affirmed.

Jones, Hocker, Sullivan & Angert and Willard A. McCaleb, all of St. Louis, for appellants.

Hall & Dame, of St. Louis, for respondent.

BENNICK, C.

This is a workmen's compensation case which reaches this court on the appeal of the employer and insurer from the judgment of the circuit court of the city of St. Louis, reversing an award of the commission.

On April 18, 1929, the employee sustained an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of his employment, the injury being to his right knee. Thereafter the employer recognized its liability for compensation, and voluntarily paid the employee a total of $248.57, computed upon the basis of $20 a week for seven and three-sevenths weeks for temporary total disability, and $10 a week for ten weeks for partial disability which the employer at least regarded as temporary in character.

It appears that such payments ceased as of August 12, 1929; and on October 12, 1929, the employee filed his formal claim for compensation, alleging a temporary disability to the date of filing, with a future disability growing out of the permanent stiffness of the knee. Under the answer filed, the extent of the disability was the point at issue before the commission.

It appears from the employee's own evidence that following his injury he was treated by Dr. Shucat, the physician of the employer's choosing; that the doctor bandaged and treated his knee until June 10, 1929; and that on that date he discharged him, and recommended that he go back to work. The employee thereupon attempted to follow the doctor's advice, but when he reported to his employer he was told that another man had been secured for his place, and that it was impossible to use him.

Dr. Shucat did not testify in the case. The employee testified, however, that when the bandage was removed and he was told to go back to work, he did not have much control of his knee; that it was weak; that he was unable to walk in the normal manner; and that he experienced pain, particularly when he was using the knee, and even at times when it was at rest. He testified further that the condition of the knee had grown progressively worse; that stiffness had developed; and that at the time of the hearing before the referee, on November 26, 1929, the knee was perfectly stiff. In fact there was no dispute between the witnesses about the fact that the knee could not be bent, the point at issue being the causal connection between that admitted condition and the injury itself.

But one physician testified for the employee, that being Dr. M. W. Hoge, a specialist in nervous and mental diseases. His testimony was that he examined the employee on November 18, 1929; that he found the muscles of the right thigh very rigid, holding the leg perfectly straight at the knee; that there were no abnormal reflexes indicating organic nervous disease, so that he considered that the spasm in the thigh muscles was a neurosis or functional nervous disorder due to or excited by an inflammatory condition of the knee joint, if such was present; and that while he did not feel qualified to say that such an inflammatory condition existed, nevertheless the tenderness in manipulating the patella rather suggested that as a possibility.

He testified further that in his opinion the employee could not voluntarily maintain his knee in a rigid position on account of the fact that the muscles would soon tire out; and that the condition could be permanent, though not necessarily so, the length of time it would take for the employee to recover being a matter of uncertainty.

The witnesses for the employer and insurer were Drs. Leroy C. Abbott, C. A. Vosburgh, and Richard Graeser.

Dr. Abbott, who specializes in orthopedic surgery, testified that he first examined the employee on October 25, 1929, and had him under observation several times thereafter; that he could find no evidence of swelling of the joint, no localized areas of tenderness, and no thickening about the joint to account for the very marked rigid contraction of all the muscles of the thigh; that the X-ray pictures which were taken were negative save for a slight degree of hypertrophic arthritis about the patella which played no important part in the employee's condition; that he found no anatomical or pathological reason for the contraction of the muscles, and no evidence of injury to the cartilage; that his examination, in so far as articulation of the knee was concerned, was essentially negative; and that his conclusion was that the cause of the rigidity was something of the functional or hysterical type.

Dr. Vosburgh examined the employee on three occasions; the first on June 21, 1929, the second on August 2, 1929, and the third on October 22, 1929.

He testified that on his first examination, he found nothing by way of scars, swellings, or irregularity that would furnish any evidence of the type of injury the employee had suffered; that both knees had the same measurements; that the employee could extend his knee normally, but that his ability to flex it was forty degrees less than normal; that there was no evidence of any fracture or dislocation or other important injury of any kind which would explain the inability to move the joint; that the relation between the elements forming the joint was normal; that there was no inflammatory...