Case Title: Cross v. Industrial Commission

Citation: 303 P.2d 710, 81 Ariz. 222

Docket Number: 

State: arizona

Court: Arizona Supreme Court

Date: 1956-11-20T00:00:00Z

Document:
81 Ariz. 222 (1956) 303 P.2d 710 Rufus T. CROSS, Petitioner, v. The INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION of Arizona and William E. Rauh, Respondents. No. 6218. Supreme Court of Arizona. November 20, 1956. Silver, Silver & Ettinger, Tucson, for petitioner. John R. Franks, Phoenix, Donald J. Morgan, Robert K. Park and John F. Mills, Phoenix, of counsel, for respondent Industrial Commission. WINDES, Justice. Certiorari to the Industrial Commission of Arizona to test the validity of a final award of the commission denying compensation to Rufus T. Cross. Petitioner was employed by respondent William E. Rauh as janitor and dishwasher from September 20, 1954, to October 11, 1954. The evidence *223 indicates that during this period he bumped his head two or three times on a shelf over the sink. According to the employer's testimony, during this period of employment petitioner complained of having a cold in his eye. Upon termination of his services, he went to the hospital at Davis-Monthan Air Base. The doctor in charge of the hospital called in Dr. Sherwood P. Burr, Jr., an eye specialist, who examined petitioner. The commission having initially denied compensation, rehearing was granted at which Dr. Burr was sworn and testified. The initial award was affirmed. A petition for second rehearing was filed for the purpose of submitting additional medical evidence through Dr. Jack Klein, an eye specialist. This petition was granted and the commission appointed a board of medical examiners consisting of Drs. Paul E. McFarland, John S. Aiello and H.F. French for the purpose of examining petitioner and reporting to the commission. Dr. Klein testified at the second rehearing. The board of examiners filed its report and no request was made for their oral testimony. After hearing the testimony of Dr. Klein and receiving the report of the board of examiners, the commission again affirmed the previous findings and award to the effect that petitioner had a detached retina of the left eye which was not causally related to or contributed to by any alleged personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment and denied compensation. The evidence fairly shows that petitioner bumped his head during the course of his employment and that thereafter it was discovered that he was suffering from a detached retina and blindness in his left eye. Whether there is a causal relationship between the accident and the detached retina is a question that must be answered by the expert medical evidence. Petitioner contends that this evidence without contradiction shows that the accident caused or contributed to the detached retina and the resulting blindness in his left eye and the commission, therefore, is required to allow compensation. Dr. Burr testified extensively. We believe from reading his entire testimony that he never testified that in his opinion the accident caused or contributed to the injury. His final testimony was as follows: He also stated that with a predisposition to retinal detachment the bump could possibly cause it; that the bump could possibly cause it without predisposition; that it was possible that he would have had the detachment without a bump, i.e., it could have been spontaneous, and that it is possible he had the detachment before his employment. The doctor then testified: Dr. Klein testified at length. We believe a fair statement of his final conclusion is as follows: The board of medical examiners in its report stated: It appears from the foregoing that according to the medical evidence causal connection was a possibility but there was also a possibility that the accident did not cause or contribute to his injury. We do not feel that under this state of the record, we would be justified in saying *226 that the evidence was such as compelled the commission to adopt one of several possibilities and thereby require the commission to decide that the petitioner has by uncontradicted evidence proven that the injury was caused or contributed to by the accident. Award affirmed. LA PRADE, C.J., and UDALL, PHELPS, and STRUCKMEYER, Jr., JJ., concurring.