Star Pub. Co. v. Jackson

• Decision Date: 20 December 1944
• Docket Number: 17301.
• Citation: 58 N.E.2d 202,115 Ind.App. 221
• Parties: STAR PUB. CO. v. JACKSON.
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

58 N.E.2d 202

115 Ind.App. 221

STAR PUB. CO. v. JACKSON.

No. 17301.

Appellate Court of Indiana, in Banc.

December 20, 1944

Appeal from Industrial Board.

Proceedings under the Occupational Diseases Act by William E. Jackson employee, to recover compensation for disability caused by neurosis, opposed by Star Publishing Company, employer. From an award of the Industrial Board in favor of employee employer appeals.

Award reversed.

Ross, McCord, Ice & Miller, George P. Ryan and James V. Donadio, all of Indianapolis, for appellant.

Russell J. Dean and Robert L. Carrico, both of Indianapolis, for appellee.

DRAPER Chief Judge.

This is a proceeding brought before the Industrial Board under the Indiana Workmen's Occupational Diseases Act, being Acts 1937, Ch. 69, p. 334, § 40-2201 et seq., Burns' 1940 Replacement.

The Board, by a majority of its members, found that 'the plaintiff was disabled on account of an occupational disease namely, neurosis, which was contracted by him while in the employment of the defendant and which was brought about and caused by his employment with the defendant * * * as a linotype operator for defendant for a period of many years since the year 1929,' and compensation was awarded for twenty-four weeks temporary total disability at the rate prescribed by law. The findings and award also designate the disease as an 'occupational neurosis.'

The defendant assigns as error that the award is contrary to law.

The evidence discloses the plaintiff working for the defendant as a linotype operator from 1929 to September 1943. About March 1943 he noticed that his left hand would cramp and draw up as he worked, preventing proper operation of the keyboard. He had no difficulty with the right hand, although its burden of work equalled that of the left.

The medical testimony indicated without dispute that plaintiff was in excellent health. No organic disease, muscle atrophy sensory loss or impairment of reflexes or sensibilities could be discovered. His skull, spine, vital organs, blood pressure and pulse were normal and there was no weakness of the muscles of the left upper extremity. The tendons, nerves and arteries of the upper left arm were objectively intact and normal. The appellee was exhaustively examined in many other respects, but the objective examination was entirely negative. All medical witnesses agreed that plaintiff was suffering from a neurosis, and that the condition was not peculiar to any particular occupation. In only one respect did the experts disagree. The plaintiff's physician, who had not in his examination of the plaintiff explored the possibilities of a mental difficulty, testified: 'I would attribute it (such neurosis) to chronic fatigue of the nerve centers controlling the muscles of the upper left extremity, particularly those controlling the movement of the hand and digits which make the movements necessary to the operation of the linotype machine.' The others attributed it solely to a condition of the appellee's mind that had arisen out of a disagreement between him and his foreman, with consequent unpleasantness existing between them for a period of ten years, the appellee feeling that the foreman had discriminated against him, had been unkind toward him, had denied him well-deserved vacations and twice attempted to have him discharged. The evidence discloses that neurosis is not characteristic of the business involved, one witness testifying that in his experience extending over forty-two years, he had...