Silcox v. Industrial Commission

• Decision Date: 18 February 1942
• Docket Number: 6388
• Citation: 101 Utah 438,121 P.2d 901
• Court: Utah Supreme Court
• Parties: SILCOX v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al

121 P.2d 901

101 Utah 438

SILCOX v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al

No. 6388

Supreme Court of Utah

February 18, 1942

Rehearing Denied May 5, 1942.

For opinion on rehearing, see 101 Utah 443, 125 P.2d 428.

Proceedings under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Wilford T Silcox, claimant, opposed by the United States Smelting Refining and Mining Company, employer and self-insurer. From a decision of the Industrial Commission denying the compensation claim, the claimant seeks review.

Affirmed.

Barclay & Barclay, of Salt Lake City, for plaintiff.

Grover A. Giles, Atty. Gen., Zar E. Hayes, Deputy Atty. Gen., and Cheney, Jensen, Marr & Wilkins, of Salt Lake City, for defendant.

WOLFE Justice. McDONOUGH, J., LARSON, Justice, concurring. MOFFAT, C. J., and PRATT, J., dissenting.

OPINION

WOLFE, Justice.

Appeal from a decision of the Industrial Commission of Utah denying plaintiff's claim for workmen's compensation.

Plaintiff was employed as a mucker by the United States Smelting, Refining and Mining Company, defendant, in its mine at Lark, Utah. Defendant corporation is a self-insurer under the Workmen's Compensation Act of Utah.

Plaintiff testified that on November 25, 1940, he was helping a fellow worker lift a 225 pound leyner machine upon the leyner bar preparatory to drilling when he felt a sharp pain in his back at his sacro-iliac. The pain became so intense that he was unable to work the remainder of the day. That he sat upon a muck pile the rest of the working day, periodically, leaning over a mine car, to gain relief from the pain.

Plaintiff returned to his station the following day but was unable to continue work due to the pain in his back. Plaintiff then quit work on November 27, 1940, two days after the strain, and has not worked since. Plaintiff seeks compensation from November 37, 1940, together with doctor and medical bills.

The question for review as stated by plaintiff is "whether or not the Industrial Commission upon the record before it should have as a matter of law awarded compensation to plaintiff."

On appeal, defendant does not deny that plaintiff suffered a strain but does deny plaintiff's contention that the disability resulted from or was contributed to by the accident, or had any causal connection therewith. Defendant relies upon the medical testimony to establish its position that there was no injury by sprain to the sacro-iliac; further contending that plaintiff's pain arises from extensive hypertrophic osteoarthritis.

The record of medical testimony taken at the hearing is rather voluminous, there being five doctors called who had at one time or another examined the claimant since the accident.

For brevity, it may be said all five doctors agreed after examining the X-ray pictures that there were not definite fractures or dislocations of the vertebrae; that, however, there was a definite hypertrophic osteoarthritis of the fifth, fourth, third and second lumbar vertebrae, with a bridging of bone connecting the third and fourth lumbar which had existed before the accident, and apparent lippings on the other vertebrae mentioned.

On the question of the condition of the sacro-iliac, the doctors were not unanimous in their diagnosis of the arthritic condition, but at the same time did not give a conflicting diagnosis, plaintiff's doctors refusing to express an opinion as to a possible arthritic condition.

Plaintiff's two medical witnesses, Dr. Baldwin and Dr. Capener, stated that on their preliminary examination they had believed plaintiff was suffering from sacro-iliac sprain or strain, and they had written separate reports to this effect; however, on being offered an opportunity to examine the X-ray pictures showing the arthritic condition of the spine, which had not been made available to them before, they readily stated that they had found no objective symptoms of sacro-iliac strain or movement but that their diagnosis was based upon statements made to them by the patient.

Plaintiff contends that all five doctors agreed that plaintiff was suffering from "sacro-iliac strain as well as arthritis." This position is untenable for the reason that no where in the record do any of the doctors express such a view. The doctors generally agreed that it was possible to have a strain in the sacro-iliac without its showing in the X-ray; however, no doctor, not even those engaged by the plaintiff, could find any definite objective evidence as to a strain...