Talley v. Department of Correction

• Decision Date: 07 November 1962
• Docket Number: No. 34,34
• Citation: 230 Md. 22,185 A.2d 352
• Parties: Matthew TALLEY v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, Maryland House of Correction, et al.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

Page 22

230 Md. 22

185 A.2d 352

Matthew TALLEY v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, Maryland House of Correction, et al.

No. 34.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

Nov. 7, 1962.

Maurice J. Pressman, Baltimore (Bernard Brager, Baltimore, on the brief), for appellant.

Charles R. Goldsborough, Jr., Sp. Atty. (Thomas B. Finan, Atty. Gen., J. Howard Holzer, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., and J. Raymond Buffington, Jr., Sp. Atty., Baltimore, on the brief), for appellees.

Before BRUNE, C. J., and HENDERSON, PRESCOTT, MARBURY and SYBERT, JJ.

PRESCOTT, Judge.

An inmate at the Maryland House of Correction, claiming to have sustained accidental injuries to his lower back, and having had his claims disallowed by the Workmen's Compensation Commission (Commission) and, on appeal, by the Baltimore City Court, now appeals here.

Two questions are posed for determination: (1) Did the claimant sustain accidental personal injuries arising out of and in the course of his employment on November 30, 1960, and/or on December 16, 1960?; and (2), Is the disability of the claimant the result of an accidental personal injury arising out of and in the course of his employment?

The facts will be stated in the consideration of question one.

I

The Commission and trial court both found that the claimant had failed to establish that he suffered an accidental injury either on November 30th, or December 16th. The statute makes the finding of the Commission prima facie correct, and the appellant realizes that he had the burden, at his trial below, of showing that he suffered an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of his employment. The claimant related how, on November 30th, the truck in which he was riding back to the Sandy Point road camp for prisoners had been brought to a sudden stop, and he fell from a crate upon which he had been seated, hurting his back. He testified that the alleged injury did not cause him to cease work, nor to obtain medical treatment. His supervisor, who was operating the 'panel truck,' stated that the claimant made no complaint to him, and he had no knowledge of any injury to the appellant; that the truck had no partition in it; and, if the claimant had been injured, he certainly thought that he (the supervisor) would have known it. The claimant did not file his claim for this alleged injury until March 6, 1961, which was sometime after his filing a claim, on January 23, 1961, for another alleged injury occurring on December 16, 1960. And there was no evidence produced in the entire record, except that of the claimant, that affirmatively showed any traumatic injury to him as of November 30th, or that any previous illness or condition had been aggravated by the alleged injury. In any event, we take it that the appellant abandoned his claim for alleged injuries occurring as of this date, when he said in his brief: 'Appellant did not seek medical care following the accident on November 30, 1960. He testified that the pain was slight and not enough to bother him or cause him to stop working. The accident which disabled him was the occurrence of December 16, 1960.' We, therefore, proceed to a consideration of his claim for injuries as of that date.

At the hearing before the Commission on May 1, 1961, only two witnesses were produced: the claimant and his supervisor on November 30th. The latter was vacationing on December 16th, and knew nothing concerning the appellant's claim as of that date. The evidence before the Commission consisted of the testimony of these two witnesses and the reports of four doctors. The Commission found against the claimant, and, upon appeal, the case was submitted to the lower court for trial upon the record made before the Commission.

The appellant testified that on December 16th, while removing snow from the walkway in the 'Court of Appeals yard,' at about 10:30 a. m., his 'left foot give away' and he fell, twisting his back. He stated that he was 38 years old; ¹ that he told his supervisor, a Mr. Greenwood, about his 'accident' shortly after it occurred; that he continued work until 4:00 p. m. on that date; but that he did not go to work the next day because of the pain in his back. He further stated he reported the 'trouble with [his] back' on December 19th, and requested hospitalization. He entered the hospital (and remained there for a month and five days), where they 'put a bed board under [his] bed,' administered him pills for his pain, and later 'gave [him] diathermy.' He further stated that he was released from the House of Correction of February 16, 1961; that he had received no further treatment for his back since them; that he was still having trouble 'bending over' and sleeping; and that he had never had any trouble with his back prior to the 'accidents.' The testimony disclosed that Mr Greenwood was still employed at the Sandy Point road camp, but he was not called by either side.

When the claimant was admitted to the hospital at the House of Correction on December 19th, he was examined by Dr. Yosuico. The doctor's report, summarized, stated that the appellant reported an 'accident' in the truck, and another 'when [he] was moving snow in Annapolis [his] back hurt'; that there was 'tenderness over the lumbar spines, lower,' that the treatment given by the doctor was 'parafon ii quid, bed board diathermy qd.'; and that an X-Ray showed nothing abnormal in the lumber spines. Further, in response to the printed question, 'Is injury above referred to the only cause of patient's condition?' the doctor answered 'yes,' and he also reported that there was no history or evidence of a previous accident or disease.

At the request of his counsel, the appellant was examined by Dr. Maseritz on February 20, 1961. The doctor's report is quite long, and indicates a rather thorough examination. It would serve no useful purpose to set it forth in full; with the exceptions noted below, it describes a healthy, normal individual. The patient reported pain in the low back, recurring in character, but not referred to the extremities and with no history of sensory changes. His body tilted to the left; there was no rigidity of the cervical or thoracic areas of the spine and no tender points; but pain was elicited on percussion; there was pain 'to the right' but not 'to the left' which was compatible with the rigidity noted; and the right ankle reflex was diminished. An X-Ray examination of the lumbar spine and a portion of the lower dorsal showed hyperthopic arthritic changes, short rib at D-12 and narrowing between L-4, L-5 and L-5, S-1. The doctor thought a neurosurgical consultation was indicated, and the appellant was referred to Dr. Weiner for that purpose.

Dr. Weiner saw the claimant on February 21, 1961. He reported that appellant was a man below average intelligence and the history was given 'very slowly and hesitantly and [impressed the doctor] as being of some questionable accuracy.' The patient reported the 'accidents' above noted, and stated that his pain was then limited to the low back, and 'on repeated questioning' he denied any significant leg pain. The doctor found the appellant to be a stocky, muscular Negro male, who was fully conscious. He stood with his spine in forward flexion, and was extremely reluctant to move or bend in any direction. The paravertebral lumbar muscles were somewhat tight, but the doctor did not believe that this was a true spasm. There was extreme, generalized tenderness over the entire lumbar spine, the paralumbar muscles and the sacrum, much of which, to the doctor, seemed to be hyperreaction. Straight leg raising was positive bilaterally at about 75 degrees; appellant's gait and balance were normal; there was no muscular weakness or atrophy; the deep tendon reflexes in the lower extremities were active and symmetrical; no pathological reflexes were present; and sensory examinations to...