Case Title: Aluminum Company of America v. Williams

Citation: 335 S.W.2d 315

Docket Number: 5-2099

State: arkansas

Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Date: 1960-05-16T00:00:00Z

Document:
335 S.W.2d 315 (1960) ALUMINUM COMPANY OF AMERICA, Appellant, v. Thurman S. WILLIAMS, Appellee. No. 5-2099. Supreme Court of Arkansas. May 16, 1960. Rehearing Denied June 6, 1960. *316 Rose, Meek, House, Barron & Nash; By: Phillip Carroll, Little Rock, for appellant. McMath, Leatherman, Woods & Youngdahl, Little Rock, for appellee. McFADDIN, Justice. The appellee, Williams, was employed by appellant, Aluminum Company of America; and we will identify the parties as Williams and Alcoa. This appeal requires a decision on two points: (a) whether there is substantial competent evidence to support the finding of the Workmen's Compensation Commission; and (b) the liability of the employer to compensate an employee for a second injury which arose because of the first injury and without any intervening independent cause. Chronologically, here are the salient dates: So much for the chronological detail. The Referee and the Full Commission agreed with Alcoa and denied Williams' 1959 claim. The Circuit Court reversed the Commission and directed that compensation be allowed Williams;[1] and Alcoa prosecutes this appeal, claiming that there is substantial evidence to support the finding of the Referee and the Full Commission, which was that the second operation (that of January 6, 1959) was not necessitated by reason of the old injury of 1957 and the first operation, but rather was because of an intervening and independent cause which was an injury received while Williams was working for his brother, John Williams, as a carpenter in Dermott. We recognize the rule to be, that viewing the evidence in its strongest light to sustain the Commission's findings if there be sufficient evidence to support such factual findings, then the Circuit Court was in error in reversing the Commission. J. L. Williams & Sons v. Smith, 205 Ark. 604, 170 S.W.2d 82; Sturgis Bros. v. Mays, 208 Ark. 1017, 188 S.W.2d 629; and other cases cited in West's Arkansas Digest Workmen's Compensation. But a careful study of the record fails to reveal any evidence that Williams suffered any trauma or injury while working in Dermott in 1958 sufficient *318 to constitute an independent intervening cause for the 1959 operation. Only four witnesses testified. They were Williams, Dr. Murphy, Doyle Green and Lowell White. Williams testified, as abstracted by appellant: Doyle Green was called by Alcoa. He was the owner of the filling station and diner at Dermott that was being repaired. He had contracted with John Williams to do the repair work, and John Williams had employed appellee, Thurman S. Williams, to help him. Doyle Green testified that the carpentry work done by Williams was very light work, such as taking down old paneling and putting up new; and taking down the old ceiling squares (16-inch plywood) and putting up new. Green testified (as abstracted by appellant): It will be seen that Doyle Green's testimony shows that no trauma or new injury occurred to Williams while he was working in December 1958. Alcoa called Lowell White, who was safety supervisor of Alcoa. He testified as to Williams' complaints in October 1957, and that thereafter Williams refused to "co-operate". None of White's testimony indicated any trauma suffered by Williams or any undue exercise by him except the October 1957 incident. We come then to the testimony of Dr. Horace R. Murphy, who was the doctor that performed both the operations on Williams; and we are tremendously impressed by Dr. Murphy's absolute candor and frankness. His testimony shows that the second operation was necessitated because of the first operation, and not because of any new trauma or injury. Dr. Murphy testified that when he performed the first operation he removed all of the nucleus pulposus that could be removed with safety from the fourth and fifth interspace, and that he hoped that a fusion operation would not be subsequently required; that, as a usual thing, if all of the nucleus pulposus material was not removed, then within eighteen months or two years the patient frequently had to have another operation and fusion. Dr. Murphy testified that when Williams came back to him on January 2, 1959 and told him of continuous pains, the doctor knew that a fusion was indicated and that the second operation was the direct result of the first operation and not of any *319 trauma or intervening independent cause between the two operations.[2] Having reviewed the entire record, we conclude that the Commission was in error in finding, as it did, that the second operation was necessitated by an intervening independent cause. All the evidence shows that the second operation was necessitated by reason of the first operation, and that no intervening independent cause was established. Having concluded that no independent intervening cause was shown to require Williams' second operation, we examine now to see if Williams is entitled under the law to recover the expenses of the second operation and compensation for additional disability, if any, resulting therefrom. In 99 C.J.S. Workmen's Compensation § 180, p. 607, the holdings are summarized: "If the employee suffers a compensable injury and thereafter suffers further disability which is the proximate result of the original injury received, such further disability is compensable. Thus, where an employee suffers a compensable injury and thereafter returns to work and as a result thereof his injury is aggravated and accelerated so that he is further disabled than before, he is entitled to compensation for his entire disability". In Larson's two-volume treatise on "Workmen's Compensation Law", that writer states the holdings in Vol. 1 § 13.00: "When the primary injury is shown to have arisen out of and in the course of employment, every natural consequence that flows from the injury likewise arises out of the employment, unless it is the result of an independent intervening cause attributable to claimant's own negligence or misconduct". In 58 Am.Jur. p. 775, "Workmen's Compensation" § 278, cases from various jurisdictions are cited to sustain the text: "A subsequent incident, or injury, may be of such a character that its consequences are the natural result of the original injury and may thus warrant the granting of compensation therefor as a part of that injury".[3] There is no evidence of any "independent intervening cause" in this case, so Williams' second operation requiring a spinal *320 fusion was the result of his original injury on April 24, 1957 and his first operation on May 7, 1957. We therefore hold that he is entitled to recover the expenses of the second operation and compensation for additional disability. The parties stipulated in the Circuit Court to these matters; and the Circuit Court judgment showing the stipulation reads as follows: In the light of the record and the said stipulation, we conclude that the Circuit Court was correct. The judgment is therefore affirmed, and the cause remanded to the Circuit Court in order that the cause may be remanded to the Commission to see that the Circuit Court judgment is performed. HOLT, J., dissents. GEORGE ROSE SMITH, J., not participating. [1] Here is a portion of the opinion of the Circuit Court: "The Court sees no point in relating history of the injuries and the evidence, but reaches the following findings of fact and conclusions of law: "1. The record upon being viewed in the strongest probative light in favor of the findings of the Referee and the Commission does not, in the opinion of this Court, support the finding of the Referee and the Commission. The Court believes there is a complete absence of testimony upon which to base the findings of the Referee and the Commission in this respect. "2. It is noted that in the Referee's statement of the case which the Commission affirmed, the Referee makes the following statement of fact: `That the injury causing the need of claimant's second operation resulted from his employment by John Williams.' The Referee and the Commission went further and related that a second operation performed by Dr. Murphy was a result of this additional accident or trauma, basing their finding upon the doctor's testifying that the operation was a success. "3. After examining the record with great care, the Court finds no evidence to support the statement that the injury occurred while in the employ of John Williams, or any statement by any medical witness that the claimant was cured by the operation. But, to the contrary, the doctor's testimony was directed wholly to the removal of disc material which should have been removed at the first operation and was not done because of the technical difficulty in removing same. [2] We copy a few questions and answers found in Dr. Murphy's testimony: "Q. Well, at least, is it your opinion based on what you actually saw when you went in the second time that his pain was primarily caused by this additional piece of fragment pressing against the nerve root? A. I believe so because it was a very definite finding and of course, the fact that he was relieved as far as his hip pain. I mention hip pain because it was quite significant. It's one of the components of sciatica. In other words, the nerve root being pressed upon by the disc material can give you a complete radiation down the leg or it can merely give you hip pain and at that time he was having a rather excruciating hip pain. Following the surgery he actually has been relieved as far as leg symptoms are concerned * * *. "Q. Just one question to more or less sum up. Then it is your testimony that Thurman Williams' condition when you saw him in January, 1959, as a result of which you did the myelogram and subsequent operation, his condition was a result of the extrusion of some bits or particles of the same interspace that had been operated on in April, 1957, by an extrusion of those materials causing his trouble. Now, of course, in his history and in your examination that was not associated with any other particular strain or trauma that you know about? A. May I answer it in parts? "Q. Yes. A. The answer of part 1 of your question, it is true this represents a recurrence and the same interspace, the same disc material which unfortunately could not be gotten in the first. Part two of your question, from my history which is turned in the report, was there was no previous history of trauma and that a month before or thereabouts he stated that he started having trouble." [3] There is an annotation in 7 A.L.R. 1186 entitled: "Workmen's Compensation: Compensation as affected by external infection from, or subsequent incident of, original injury"; and cases are there collected from various jurisdictions. See also annotation on related matters in 102 A.L.R. 790 and 39 A.L.R. 1276. [4] Also in the last paragraph of the judgment of the Circuit Court it was adjudged that Alcoa should pay all hospital, doctors, medical, and drug bills incurred by the said Thurman S. Williams, as a result of the recurrence of the injury to his back; and that Alcoa should pay attorney's fees and costs.