Estes v. General Chemical Clay Co.

• Decision Date: 06 April 1936
• Docket Number: No. 18555.,18555.
• Parties: ESTES v. GENERAL CHEMICAL CLAY CO. et al.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

93 S.W.2d 295

ESTES v. GENERAL CHEMICAL CLAY CO. et al.

No. 18555.

Kansas City Court of Appeals. Missouri.

April 6, 1936.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Gasconade County; R. A. Breuer, Judge.

"Not to be published in State Reports."

Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Emmett E. Estes, claimant, opposed by the General Chemical Clay Company and Glen B. Sundy, employers, and the Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York, insurer. From a judgment of the circuit court reversing the award of the Compensation Commission refusing compensation to claimant and remanding the case, the employers and the insurer appeal.

Reversed.

Geo. A. Hodgman and Luke & Cunliff, all of St. Louis, for appellants.

B. B. Baxter and Joseph T. Tate, both of Owensville, for respondent.

SHAIN, Presiding Judge.

In November, 1934, Emmett E. Estes filed claim for compensation before the Missouri Workmen's Compensation Commission alleging that on September 7, 1934, he had received injury to his left thumb as the result of an accident while using a pick in digging clay. There were the formal allegations as to employment and that the accident happened in due course of employment.

On January 28, 1935, a hearing was had before Edward C. Lynch, referee, and on February 25, 1935, an award was made by said referee refusing compensation to the claimant.

Thereafter, and in due time, application for review was filed, and thereafter a review was had before the full commission and a final award was made on April 9, 1935. The final award on rehearing (omitting caption) is as follows:

"The above parties having submitted their disagreement or claim for compensation for the above alleged accident to the undersigned Members of the Missouri Workmen's Compensation Commission, and after hearing the parties at issue, their representatives, witnesses and evidence, the undersigned hereby find in favor of the above employer and insurer and against the above employee and award no compensation for the above alleged accident.

"We find from the evidence that the employee has failed to prove that the disability complained of is the result of an accident as alleged on September 7, 1934. We further find that his condition was from causes wholly independent of his employment on said date. Therefore, compensation is denied.

"Affirming on review award dated February 25, 1935.

"Given at the City of Jefferson, State of Missouri, this 9th day of April, 1935.

                                    "Edgar C. Nelson
                         "Member, Missouri Workmen's
                               Compensation Commission
                                   "Orin H. Shaw
                         "Member, Missouri Workmen's
                               Compensation Commission
                                   "Jay J. James
                         "Member, Missouri Workmen's
                               Compensation Commission.
                   "A true copy. Attest:
                                "Spencer H. Givens,
                        "Secretary of said Commission."
                

Claimant duly appealed from the aforesaid final award and records were duly forwarded to the clerk of the circuit court of Gasconade county, Mo.

At the September term, 1935, of the circuit court of Gasconade county, and on September 10, 1935, a hearing in said matter was had before the judge of said court and the judgment of said court (caption omitted) is as follows:

"Now at this day this cause coming on to be heard comes the plaintiff in his own proper person, and by his attorneys of record, comes also the attorney for the insurer, and both plaintiff and defendant announces ready for trial before the Judge of this court, without the aid of a jury.

"The Court finds that plaintiff Emmett Estes was employed by the General Chemical Clay Company for some time during the year 1934, and during which time of employment he seems to have been injured, from which said injury said plaintiff was unable to further perform the duties for said Company for quite a space of time. The Court further finds that said plaintiff filed his claim before the Missouri Workmen's Compensation Commission, which said Commission has held hearings and investigated this case.

"From the evidence adduced it appears to this Court that all the facts in this case do not seem to have been presented to the Commission.

"Wherefore, it is the order of this Court that the decision of said Commission be reversed and the cause remanded back to the Missouri Workmen's Commission for further investigation and hearings, so that any matter that may have been omitted, may be brought before said Commission so that plaintiff may receive substantial justice after all such facts have been presented and weighed by the Commission upon a rehearing."

From the judgment of the circuit court on aforesaid appeal, the employer and the insurance company have duly appealed.

There are four assignments of error presented in the appellants' brief. However, we conclude that assignment No. 4 is sufficient for the purposes of this case. The assignment is as follows:

"IV. The Circuit Court exceeded its authority in reversing and remanding the award of the Compensation Commission for the reason that the Compensation Act provides specific and exclusive grounds for reversing, remanding or modifying any award, and in this case the judgment of the Circuit Court and the action of the Circuit Court in reversing and remanding the case was not based upon any of the grounds provided in said Act."

Opinion.

The limitations of a court reviewing an award made by the Workmen's Compensation Commission are plainly stated in section 3342, R.S.Mo.1929 (Mo.St. Ann. § 3342, p. 8275), and have been so frequently set forth and discussed by the appellate courts of this state that we need not comment thereon further than to say: "The finding of the commission, if supported by competent substantial evidence, is conclusive." Wright v. Penrod, Jurden & Clark Co. et al. (Mo.App....