Smith v. Clearwater County

• Decision Date: 30 November 1943
• Docket Number: 7085
• Citation: 65 Idaho 271,143 P.2d 561
• Parties: MAUDE SMITH, Respondent, v. CLEARWATER COUNTY and WESTERN HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION, Appellants
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

143 P.2d 561

65 Idaho 271

MAUDE SMITH, Respondent, v. CLEARWATER COUNTY and WESTERN HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION, Appellants

No. 7085

Supreme Court of Idaho

November 30, 1943

1. Workmen's compensation

Findings of Industrial Accident Board supported by substantial evidence are controlling on appeal, and where there is sufficient competent evidence, if uncontradicted, to support the findings, they will not be disturbed. (I.C.A., secs 43-901, et seq.)

2. Appeal and error

Where the facts are such that different minds might reach different conclusions upon the issues presented, however meager the evidence, if it is of a substantial nature and character, the findings of triers of fact should prevail.

3. Workmen's compensation

Injured county employee who was unconscious when taken to hospital and was not fully conscious when subsequently transferred to other hospitals, none of which were operated by association which had contracted with county to provide hospitalization for county employees, did not by such hospitalization and treatment employ her own physician or obtain unauthorized care so as to relieve association from obligation under contract to furnish additional medical and surgical treatment. (I.C.A., secs. 43-901, et seq., 43-1108.)

4. Workmen's compensation

Physician's testimony that further medical treatment was worth trying though results thereof were doubtful, was sufficient showing as to whether further medical treatment would be beneficial so as to entitle injured county employee to such treatment under hospital contract to provide hospitalization and care for county employees. (I.C.A., secs. 43-901, et seq 43-1108.)

Appeal from the Industrial Accident Board. Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Maude Smith, claimant opposed by Clearwater County, employer, and the Western Hospital Association. From an order awarding relief, employer and Western Hospital Association appeal.

Affirmed.

Durham and Hyatt, for appellant, Western Hospital Association.

So far as medical care and hospitalization are concerned, the rights and duties of a hospital contractor may be compared to those of an employer under the workmen's compensation law.

The hospital contractor is substituted for the employer released by entering into a hospital contract. (Flock v. J. C. Palumbo Fruit Co., Ida., 63 Idaho 220, 118 P.2d 707.).

Since the employer (and therefore the hospital contractor) is obligated to provide the medical, surgical and hospital attendance, he has the right to designate and select the physicians who (and therefore the hospitals which) are to give the treatment. (Epperson v. Texas-Owyhee Mining and Development Co., (Ida., 63 Idaho 251, 118 P.2d 745; Myers v. v. Industrial Accident Commission, Cal. 191 Cal. 673, 218 P. 11; Arneson v. Robinson, 59 Ida. 223, 82 P.2d 249; Totton v. Long Lake Lumber Co., 61 Ida. 74, 97 P.2d 596.).

Respondent by failing and refusing to avail herself of the services and facilities provided by appellant and by employing treatment and hospitalization not authorized under the contract released appellant from responsibility for her condition and its complications.

Since appellant made adequate hospitalization, medical and surgical treatment available to the respondent, which she rejected, it is not liable for further treatment. (Totton v. Long Lake Lumber Co., 61 Ida. 74, 97 P.2d 596; Epperson v. Texas-Owyhee Mining & Development Co. Ida., 63 Idaho 251, 118 P.2d 745; Radil v. Morris & Co., Neb., 103 Neb. 84, 170 N.W. 363.).

The respondent did not sustain the burden of proof in showing that further medical care would be beneficial.

The respondent offered no evidence on this point, and the only medical testimony in the record showed that the results of further medical care were doubtful.

Even though the evidence is in equipoise, the respondent may not recover because the burden was on her to show that her disability could be improved by further medical care and treatment. (Carlson. v. F. H. DeAtley & Co., 55 Ida. 713, 46 P.2d 1089.).

Frank F. Kimble, for appellant, Clearwater County.

B. Auger, for respondent.

HOLDEN, C.J. Ailshie, Budge, Givens and Dunlap, JJ., concur.

OPINION

HOLDEN, C.J.

April 1, 1940, appellant entered into a hospital contract with Clearwater County, Idaho, whereby appellant contracted to provide hospital benefits and accommodations to the employees of that county at its hospital at Orofino in said county, pursuant to and as provided by sec. 43-1108, I.C.A. Among other things, it was mutually contracted and agreed that:

"The said Western Hospital Association, party of the first part, agrees to provide to each and every person employed by the party of the second part in the occupations and locations above mentioned, who shall elect (as did the claimant herein) to receive the benefits of this agreement and shall contribute (as claimant herein did) to the association hereunder, all necessary and reasonable medical, surgical and hospital attendance, medicines, nursing, crutches and apparatus by its surgeons * * *:

"1. * * *

"2. * * *

"3. For other injuries received during the employment of such person by the party of the second part (Clearwater County) and while employee is a contributor hereunder * * *

"* * * The refusal of an employee to consult with the association's surgeon or to comply with his instructions as to treatment, or his employment of treatment or care not authorized by the association, shall be considered as a waiver of his rights to and shall disqualify him for further benefits for that condition or its complications."

August 11, 1941, claimant entered the employ of Clearwater County presumably as a stenographer in the office of the prosecuting attorney of that county and by the payment of a contribution as required and provided by said contract became entitled to receive the benefits of such hospital contract. November 29, 1941, claimant sustained an accident consisting of an injury to her right wrist, fracture of left clavicle, as well as injuries to her head and nose. The accident did not arise out of nor in the course of claimant's employment by Clearwater County. It occurred on the public highway near and just a short distance from Orofino. Claimant was immediately taken by ambulance, not provided by either appellant, to the Burns Hospital at Orofino, which hospital was not operated by appellant Western Hospital Association, and there placed under the care of a physician, who rendered first aid treatment. December 2, 1941, claimant was taken by ambulance from the Burns Hospital at Orofino to the White Hospital at Lewiston, Idaho, where she remained until the following day and then was transferred to St. Joseph's Hospital in Lewiston. September 14, 1942, respondent filed her petition with the Industrial Accident Board. Her claim for additional medical and surgical treatment is based upon the above mentioned hospital contract. October 21, 1942, a hearing was had before the board. November 10, 1942, findings of fact were made and rulings of law entered thereon and on the same day the following order was entered:

"WHEREFORE IT IS ORDERED, AND THIS DOES ORDER. That the Western Hospital Association forthwith offer to the claimant, Maude Smith, further and additional treatment and attention by physicians and surgeons skilled in and specializing in orthopedics and in conditions such as hers resulting from her accident of November 29, 1941, and for repair and suture of the nerve therein severed in said accident and for the other conditions of her wrist resulting therefrom and for such further hospitalization required therefor at its expense, and

"IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, AND THIS DOES ORDER, That if the said Western Hospital Association does not within thirty days from the date hereof offer to said Maude Smith or furnish to and provide for her additional and further treatment and attendance by surgeons and physicians skilled in and specializing in orthopedics and in conditions such as hers resulting from said accident sustained by her on November 29, 1941, to her wrist for the repair and suture of the nerve therein severed in the accident and for the other conditions in her wrist resulting therefrom and such hospitalization as may be required therefor, she, the said Maude Smith, may obtain at the cost and expense of said Western Hospital Association additional and further treatment and attendance by physicians and surgeons, skilled in and specializing in orthopedics and in conditions such as hers resulting from her said accident to her wrist for the repair and suture of the nerve therein severed by said accident and for the other conditions in her wrist resulting therefrom and such further hospitalization as may be required therefor, of her own choosing."

The appeal to this court is from the above quoted order.

Appellants contend: that if the board's ruling is sustained it would mean an employee would have the right to seek medical care and attention anywhere he desired; that "The employer (and therefore the hospital contractor), must be given a reasonable opportunity to exercise his privilege and right of furnishing the medical and surgical treatment and it is the duty of the injured employee to give the employer such opportunity"; that "where the employee obtains his...