Vogt v. Ford Motor Co.

Decision Date02 April 1940
Docket NumberNo. 25490.,25490.
Citation138 S.W.2d 684
PartiesVOGT v. FORD MOTOR CO.
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; David J. Murphy, Judge.

"Not to be reported in State Reports."

Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Charles Vogt, claimant, opposed by the Ford Motor Company, employer. From a judgment affirming an award of the Workmen's Compensation Commission in favor of the claimant, the employer appeals.

Affirmed.

William M. Fitch and Malcolm I. Frank, both of St. Louis, for appellant.

Luke & Cunliff, of St. Louis, for respondent.

HUGHES, Presiding Judge.

This is an appeal by the employer, Ford Motor Company, from a judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, affirming an award of the Workmen's Compensation Commission in favor of respondent employee, who claims to have contracted bronchial asthma, while at work, from being exposed to a draft from a large fan which blew cold air, dust, chemicals, vapors and fumes of paint on him and which he inhaled causing or aggravating a preexisting weakness causing the bronchial asthma and injuring his respiratory tract, lungs, heart, both groins and causing him to suffer double hernia.

In considering the facts we are limited to those most favorable to employee's claim, and evidence unfavorable to the award must be put aside, in as much as the Commission found in his favor. Those facts are as follows:

The employer is engaged in manufacturing and assembling automobiles. The employee was engaged in what is called the trim room, where he assembled parts and put them in cars as they passed on a conveyer line. He was stationed near a door opening into a room in which was a large suction fan for ventilating purposes. The air from the fan was directed into a paint-spraying room, and the door near where employee worked was always kept open, so that the air was forced back to where he was at work, and it was contaminated with dust and fog or mist from the paint-spraying room. Employee describes it and the effect upon him as follows: "These conditions existed from the first of January up to May 21. They used several colors of paint in the paint shop. When you held a handkerchief up in the draft the air would filter through it and color the handkerchief the color of the paint they were using. I was directly in the draft. That was what I was complaining about. At first I caught a cold and the fumes made my eyes burn, my nostrils burn, my throat would feel dry, I had a choking feeling, and I started taking patented medicines. I didn't improve and the cold got worse, my cough kept getting worse, and whenever I coughed I would get so weak I could not stand and would have to hold on something to keep from falling. Then I went to the doctor. Dr. Roy Duffy treated me and I continued to work. I didn't get better but was getting worse. It got so that when I got to work and had to climb two flights of stairs, I would be so weak I could not talk. I would have to tear my collar open, I coughed so terribly hard. It kept getting worse until May 21, and that day I had a terrible coughing spell and got so weak I fell and my lungs and heart hurt me."

Employee was sent to the company doctor, who diagnosed his trouble as bronchial asthma; he was off work from May 21st to June 18th when he returned to work, and thereafter worked at irregular intervals until in August when he finally quit work for this employer.

Employee further testified that he had never had bronchial asthma prior to his employment with Ford Motor Company; that now he has double hernia, which he did not have prior to contracting bronchial asthma; that the bronchial asthma caused him to have strenuous coughing spells, when he would be in such strain as to have to hold himself.

Dr. Charles W. Miller, who testified for employee, said that he had treated him since December, 1935, that Vogt has allergic bronchial asthma; that the predisposition to have bronchial asthma has been inherent in him from childhood; that from the history of the case, working under the conditions employee did was, in his opinion, the cause of his having bronchial asthma and a precipitating factor of the hernia.

There was other testimony both pro and con, but as indicated above the foregoing facts are those favorable to the employee, which alone we can consider in determining whether there is evidence to support the finding of the Workmen's Compensation Commission.

Employee's claim was filed with the Commission on October 31, 1935, wherein Item 7 and answer was: "Date of accident: May 21, 1935," and Item 9, "Place of accident: St. Louis, Mo." It further stated that the part of the body injured was bronchial tubes while working in a draft caused by a 40-horsepower fan, developing asthma.

On February 15, 1936, plaintiff filed an amended claim with the Commission, which is entitled as a claim for personal injuries by accident, and Item 7 is, "Date of onset of disability: 5/21/35," and Item 9, "Place of: St. Louis, Mo.," and Item 11, "Parts of body injured: Respiratory tract, lungs, heart, both groins," and Item 14, "Impairment of functions of respiratory tract, of heart and of lungs, double hernia," and Item 15, "While working for employer, employee was exposed to draft of large fan which blew cold air, dust, chemicals, vapor and fumes of paint on him and which he inhaled, all of which caused, or by aggrevating a pre-existing weakness, produced a condition known as bronchial asthma and the other injuries above stated."

Appellant's contention is that the language used in the original claim indicated a claim for accident, and the language in the amended claim indicates a claim for occupational disease, and that the Commission should have sustained its motion at the hearing and compelled plaintiff to elect whether he would proceed on the claim as for an accident or as one for an occupational disease. The real gist of this contention being, that having filed a claim for an accident on October 31, 1935, which was within six months after the alleged date of the accident, that plaintiff could not on February 15, 1936, more than six months after the alleged date of injury, file a claim for an occupational disease.

A sense of fairness and understanding requires that not only an employer but also the Commission be advised of the nature of the employee's claim. We think that requisite was fully complied with in this case. No reason appears why in the amended claim the printed word "accident" was erased from Item 7, and the word "onset" inserted, or why in Item 9 the printed word "accident" was erased; on the other hand, it required no explanation because both the original claim and the amended claim clearly indicated in plain words that it was a claim for an accident. Under the Workmen's Compensation Act all proceedings before the Commission shall be simple, informal and summary. Section 3349, R.S.1929, Mo.St.Ann. § 3349, p. 8283. And all provisions shall be liberally construed with a view to the public welfare and a substantial compliance therewith shall be sufficient to give effect to rules, regulations, requirements, awards, orders or decisions of the Commission, and they shall not be declared inoperative, illegal or void for any omission of a technical nature in respect thereto. Section 3374, R.S.1929, Mo.St.Ann. § 3374, p. 8293. The very object and purpose of the entire act...

To continue reading

Request your trial
36 cases
  • Smith v. Stanolind Pipe Line Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • July 2, 1945
    ... ... 803, 92 S.W.2d 580; McKay v. Delico Meat Products ... Co., 351 Mo. 876, 174 S.W.2d 149; Vogt v. Ford Motor ... Co., 138 S.W.2d 684; Lovell v. Williams Bros., ... Inc., 50 S.W.2d 710; ... ...
  • McKay v. Delico Meat Products Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • September 7, 1942
    ... ... See, Downey v. Kansas City Gas Co., 338 Mo. 803, 92 ... S.W.2d 580, 587; Vogt v. Ford Motor Co. (Mo. App.), ... 138 S.W.2d 684, 687 ...          Respondent ... ...
  • Webb v. N.M. Pub. Co.
    • United States
    • New Mexico Supreme Court
    • September 16, 1943
    ...of courts where the injury was progressive and gradual. Selvage v. Charles Burrell & Sons, Ltd., 1921, 1 K.B. 344; Vogt v. Ford Motor Co., Mo. App. 138 S.W.2d 684 (a very similar case); Downey v. Kansas City Gas Co., 338 Mo. 803, 92 S.W.2d 580; Aldrich v. Dole, 43 Idaho 30, 249 P. 87; Fife ......
  • McCaleb v. Greer
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • April 7, 1954
    ...is conclusive on appeal, if supported by substantial evidence. Smith v. General Motors Corp., Mo.Sup., 189 S.W.2d 259; Vogt v. Fod Motor Co., Mo.App., 138 S.W.2d 684; Deister v. Thompson, 352 Mo. 871, 180 S.W.2d 15; Hunt v. Jeffries, 236 Mo.App., 476, 156 S.W.2d 23.' Stephens v. Spuck, 358 ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT