Walsh Const. Co. v. London
| Decision Date | 15 March 1954 |
| Docket Number | No. 4214,4214 |
| Citation | 80 S.E.2d 524,195 Va. 810 |
| Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
| Parties | WALSH CONSTRUCTION COMPANY ET AL. v. LEWIS P. LONDON. Record |
Gentry & Locke, for the appellants.
Walter H. Scott, for the appellee.
Lewis P. London filed a claim for compensation with the Industrial Commission, alleging that he had suffered a total loss of vision of his left eye as the result of an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment by Walsh Construction Company and Ralph E. Mills Company. After a hearing before a deputy, Commissioner M. E. Nuckols, Jr., entered an award of compensation for a 'total loss of the vision' of the eye, under Code, sec. 65-53(16). The full Commission, with Commissioner W. H. Nickels, Jr., dissenting, affirmed, and the employers and insurance carrier have appealed.
The contention of the appellants that the evidence is insufficient to support the finding, either that the claimant's eye was injured in an industrial accident or that there was causal relationship between the alleged injury and the subsequent loss of vision, requires a review of the evidence.
The record shows that on October 2, 1950, the claimant, who was then sixty-four years of age, was employed as a power shovel operator in the construction of a railroad track in Botetourt county. Because of a break down in the equipment which he was operating, the claimant was assigned to the duty of relief foreman and stationed near another power shovel which was discharging dirt and broken stone into a truck. He testified that during this operation some particles of dust or dirt got into his left eye and while he succeeded in removing some of them with a handkerchief, the eye continued to trouble him during the remainder of the shift. The next morning, as he said, 'the eye was stuck together,' he bathed it with boric acid solution, and reported the incident to his employers' 'first-aid office,' but did not on that day seek medical attention. Pending the completion of repairs to the equipment which he had been operating the superintendent suggested that he stop work for a week or ten days, and this he agreed to do with the intention of returning to his home in Asheville, North Carolina.
On October 6 claimant consulted Dr. Edgar N. Abram, an optometrist in Roanoke, who had fitted him with glasses several months previously. Dr. Abram found that the left eye was 'inflamed,' but since treatment for such condition was not within the scope of his practice he referred him to Dr. Mortimer H. Williams, a local specialist. While Dr. Williams found that the eye was 'acutely inflamed,' he was unable to find any foreign substance in it. He irrigated the eye with boric acid solution and gave the claimant a prescription for 'drops' to be used.
Althoug Dr. Williams did not so state in either of his written reports, the claimant testified that the doctor told him at the time of the examination that 'the eye was torn, all cut up.'
On October 11 claimant consulted Dr. E. E. Moore, a specialist at Asheville who found that he was suffering from 'a severe uveitis' but that there was 'no evidence of retained foreign body' in the eye. However, as this physician subsequently reported, the condition 'failed to respond favorably to all forms of treatment,' secondary glaucoma developed, and on December 15 the eye was removed.
On November 13, 1952, the claim for compensation was heard by a deputy commissioner, at which time the several written reports of the three physicians, Drs. Abram, Williams and Moore, were offered in evidence. In their reports neither Dr. Abram nor Dr. Williams expressed an opinion as to causal connection between the fact that foreign substance had gotten into the eye and the condition which thereafter developed and necessitated its removal.
In his report to the claimant's employers, under date of March 2, 1951, Dr. Moore, who had removed the eye, expressed no opinion as to such causal connection. However, on April 11, he wrote counsel for the insurance carrier that 'I know of no way to evaluate the relationship between the original injury and the eye when I saw him.' On May 3 Dr. Moore wrote the same counsel that 'In my opinion there is no relationship between Mr. London's original eye injury and the uveitis which developed in back of the eyeball.'
The claimant testified that although prior to the accident he had impaired vision in the eye this had been corrected to normal by glasses which Dr. Abram had prescribed; that previously the eye had given him no trouble; and that immediately following the accident trouble developed and became progressively worse until the eye was removed. The medical reports are to the same effect.
Furthermore, the evidence shows that an examination of the eye after its removal failed to disclose any malignancy or other disease which might have caused the uveitis and glaucoma which necessitated its removal. A blood test of the claimant for syphilis, sometimes a cause of uveitis, was negative.
Shortly after the claim had been heard by the deputy commissioner, but before a decision had been reached, the claimant was directed by a letter from Commissioner Nuckols to report to Dr. J. Fulmer Bright, the Commission's medical advisor at Richmond, for further examination. A copy of this letter which was sent to counsel for the insurance carrier stated that 'Both the claimant and the defendant may, if they so desire, have present at the time of this examination a physician of their choice.' Later the commissioner wrote counsel for both parties of the time and place at which the examination would be made. While counsel for the respective parties made no objection to the proposed examination, neither took advantage of the commissioner's suggestion that either or both might have a medical representative present at the examination.
After the claimant had been examined by Dr. Bright he was referred to Dr. DuPont Guerry, III, a specialist at Richmond, for further examination. Under date of January 6, 1953, Dr. Guerry reported to the Commission as follows:
Similarly, Dr. Bright wrote the Commission,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Loudoun Cnty. v. Richardson
...precedent. The most similar line of cases was that of Hill , based on this Court’s decisions in Owen and Walsh Const. Co. v. London , 195 Va. 810, 80 S.E.2d 524 (1954), involving eye injuries. The Commission held that intervening medical advances since those 1950s-era cases necessitated the......
-
Sessing v. Yates Drilling Co.
...of whether corrected or uncorrected vision is to be used in determining the amount of compensation award. Compare Walsh Const. Co. v. London, 195 Va. 810, 80 S.E. 2d 524, with Western Contracting Corp. v. Industrial Comm., 15 Utah 2d 208, 390 P. 2d It is not necessary to decide that correct......
-
Williams v. Fuqua, 4761
...cross-examining Doctors Glendy or Hulley. The Pocahontas Corp. v. Richardson, 186 Va. 367, 369, 42 S.E.2d 260; Walsh Construction Co. v. London, 195 Va. 810, 817, 80 S.E.2d 524. The Industrial Commission is not governed in its decisions by common law rules of evidence, and we have held that......
-
Owen v. Chesapeake Corp. of Va., 4614
...recourse to the artificial aid which proper glasses would render. This finding is in accord with our holding in Walsh Construction Co. v. London, 195 Va. 810, 80 S.E.2d 524. Considering the second issue, claimant contends that as the Commission has found that the injury to his eyes amounts ......