Swillum v. Empire Gas Transport, Inc., 13924
Decision Date | 18 September 1985 |
Docket Number | No. 13924,13924 |
Citation | 698 S.W.2d 921 |
Parties | Ronald A. SWILLUM, Respondent, v. EMPIRE GAS TRANSPORT, INC., and United States Fire Insurance Company, Appellants. |
Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
P. Pierre Dominique, Jefferson City, for appellants.
John W. Inglish, Inglish & Riner, P.C., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Empire Gas Transport, Inc. ("employer") and its workers' compensation insurer, United States Fire Insurance Company, appeal from an award of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission ("Commission") affirming an award of an administrative law judge of the Division of Workers' Compensation granting Ronald A. Swillum ("claimant") benefits under The Workers' Compensation Law, chapter 287, RSMo Supp.1981, for temporary total disability and medical expenses.
Appellants insist that the administrative law judge and the Commission erred in making certain findings and in failing to make certain other findings. Inasmuch as we review only the award of the Commission, not that of the administrative law judge, Sample v. Monsanto Chemical Co., 664 S.W.2d 625, 626 (Mo.App.1984); Conrad v. Royal Brokerage Company, Inc., 612 S.W.2d 13, 14 (Mo.App.1980), we disregard appellants' assignments of error concerning the administrative law judge.
Claimant, a truck driver, was injured January 15, 1982, when an "eighteen-wheeler" he was operating overturned. Facts found by the Commission and unchallenged by appellants are recited hereunder in quotation marks.
Appellants' first point asserts the Commission erred in finding that the extent of claimant's intoxication "did not take him out of the scope and course of his employment." Specifically, say appellants, the Commission failed to consider § 577.030.1(3), RSMo 1978, 1 which provided:
"If there was ten-hundredths of one percent or more by weight of alcohol in the person's blood, this shall be prima facie evidence that the person was intoxicated at the time the specimen was taken."
Appellants emphasize that the test of claimant's blood within 3 hours after the accident "showed his blood alcohol content level to be 0.17%."
Appellants also argue in support of their first point that the Commission failed to consider "other indicia" of the extent of claimant's intoxication including (a) claimant's admission that when he phoned the employer's terminal they could not understand what he was talking about, (b) claimant's admission that the highway patrolman thought he could smell alcohol on claimant, (c) a note by the emergency room nurse that there was a strong odor of alcohol on claimant's breath and clothing, (d) a doctor's note at 12:05 p.m., January 15, noting "alcoholic breath," and (e) a physician's progress note stating "alcohol intoxicated & severe alcohol breath."
Appellants maintain that the evidence compelled a finding that claimant "was so physically unable to operate and control his vehicle that he cannot be deemed to have been working within the scope of his employment."
The law applicable to this contention is well settled in Missouri. In Phillips v. Air Reduction Sales Co., 337 Mo. 587, 85 S.W.2d 551, 555 (1935), we find this:
Cases since Phillips have consistently followed the rule that intoxication of an employee is a defense to a workers' compensation claim only if it be shown that the employee was intoxicated to such an extent that it was impossible for him to physically and mentally engage in his employment. Page v. Green, 686 S.W.2d 528, 532 (Mo.App.1985); Brown v. Mid-Central Fish Co., 641 S.W.2d 785, 787 (Mo.App.1982); McCue v. Studebaker Automotive Sales, Inc., 389 S.W.2d 408, 411-12 (Mo.App.1965); Coonce v. Farmers Ins. Exchange, 228 S.W.2d 825, 827-28 (Mo.App.1950); O'Neil v. Fred Evens Motor Sales Co., 160 S.W.2d 775, 778-79 (Mo.App.1942).
The Commission considered the issue of claimant's intoxication and made the following findings, set off by quotation marks.
Whether an employee was intoxicated to such extent that he could not be engaged in the furtherance of his employer's business at the time of injury was held to be a question of fact to be determined by the Commission in O'Neil, 160 S.W.2d at 778-79. In reviewing...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Phelps v. Positive Action Tool Co.
...Auto. Sales (Mo.App.1965), 389 S.W.2d 408; Begey v. Parkhill Trucking Co. (Mo.App.1977), 546 S.W.2d 529; Swillum v. Empire Gas Transport. Inc. (Mo.App.1985), 698 S.W.2d 921 (blood alcohol level of .17 percent; abandonment because of intoxication is question of fact); Fink v. Workmen's Comp.......
-
Hampton v. Big Boy Steel Erection
...Cleaning Co., 701 S.W.2d 791 (Mo.App.1985); McDonald v. Grahn Mfg. Co., Inc., 700 S.W.2d 157 (Mo. App.1985); Swillum v. Empire Gas Transport, Inc., 698 S.W.2d 921 (Mo.App.1985); Anderson v. Emerson Elec. Co., 698 S.W.2d 574 (Mo.App.1985); Katzenberger v. Gill, 690 S.W.2d 473 (Mo.App.1985); ......
-
Jackson v. H.D. Lee Co., Inc., 15742
...of the administrative law judge, Richardson v. Falcon Products, Inc., 739 S.W.2d 596, 597 (Mo.App.1987); Swillum v. Empire Gas Transport, Inc., 698 S.W.2d 921, 923 (Mo.App.1985), and therefore we disregard any assignments of error concerning the findings of the administrative law judge. Swi......
-
Davis v. Roadway Exp., Inc.
...and reached the result it did. Sellers v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 752 S.W.2d 413, 415 (Mo.App.1988); Swillum v. Empire Gas Transport, Inc., 698 S.W.2d 921, 925 (Mo.App.1985); Strohmeyer v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., 396 S.W.2d 1, 3 (Mo.App.1965). If the competent evidence or permi......