Title: Deines v. Greer

State: kansas

Issuer: Kansas Supreme Court

Document:

216 Kan. 548 (1975)
532 P.2d 1257
CHARLOTTE K. DEINES, Claimant, Appellee,
v.
GARY GREER, d/b/a UNION STATION CAFE, Respondent, and UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND GUARANTY COMPANY, Insurance Carrier, Appellants.
No. 47,640

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed March 1, 1975.
Aubrey G. Linville, of Clark, Mize & Linville, Chartered, of Salina, argued the cause and was on the brief for appellants.
George E. McCullough, of McCullough, Wareheim & LaBunker, of Topeka argued the cause and was on the brief for appellee.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
FATZER, C.J.:
This is an appeal by a respondent employer and his insurance carrier from an award under the Workmen's Compensation Act.
The basic facts out of which this appeal arises are not in dispute, and they are summarized:
The claimant was working for the respondent, Gary Greer, as a cook in the Union Station Cafe. On March 10, 1972, the claimant *549 dropped an egg from the grill on which she was cooking. She reached down to clean up the egg and felt a sudden jolting pain in her back. She was immediately taken to the hospital and has been unable to work since the accident.
The claimant was a hard worker, sometimes working sixteen hours a day. She was 27 years old when the accident occurred and had been working in a restaurant since she was twelve years old. She weighed approximately 260 pounds and had carried that weight since she was in high school. She never had problems with her back before the accident, and there was no evidence of any preexisting emotional problems. In April, following her accident in March, she was standing in her home when she felt a pain like somebody stabbing her in the back and turning the knife. Her legs went out from under her and the pain has never stopped.
The claimant weighed 285 pounds in April, 1972, when she was readmitted to the hospital for treatment. At the time of her trial  April 11, 1973  she weighed 300 pounds.
The examiner entered an award in favor of the claimant based on 10 percent permanent partial disability. The award was affirmed by the director. On appeal, the district court increased the award to 415 weeks temporary total disability, and found as follows:
*550 The respondent and the insurance carrier have appealed.
The appellants first contend there was no substantial evidence to support the district court's findings that claimant's psychological and emotional problems were directly traceable to her physical injury on March 10, 1972.
It will simplify the discussion of this case if we first review the rules which restrict this court's consideration of evidence on an appeal from a workman's compensation award.
The supreme court will not weigh the evidence and consider questions of fact. In considering a question of fact, the court's function is limited to a determination whether there is substantial evidence to support the district court's findings.
In Vocke v. Eagle-Picher Co., 168 Kan. 708, 215 P.2d 185, it was held:
Again, in Buck v. Beech Aircraft Corporation, 215 Kan. 157, 523 P.2d 697, it was held:
The term "substantial evidence" has been defined on numerous occasions. In Barr v. Builders, Inc., 179 Kan. 617, 296 P.2d 1106, it was held:
See, also, Jibben v. Post & Brown Well Service, 199 Kan. 793, 433 P.2d 467; Rund v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 213 Kan. 812, 518 P.2d 518.
With these guidelines before the court, we review the record to determine whether there is any substantial evidence to support the district court's findings that claimant's psychological and emotional problems were directly traceable to her physical injury.
The undisputed evidence is that claimant had worked in a restaurant for fifteen years. Her back had not bothered her prior to the accident. She was able to be on her feet, lifting heavy pots and kettles for sixteen hours a day. She had not been affected by psychological or emotional problem previous to the accident. In fact, no question is raised concerning the accident itself or the circumstances attending it. The respondents simply assert that no causal connection has been established between the accident and the claimant's present problem. The point is not well taken.
Dr. Donald D. Goering, the claimant's regular physician, testifying as to the relationship between the injury, claimant's increased weight, and the psychosomatic reaction, stated:
"Q. That's what I was getting at.
Dr. Goering also testified that on March 22, 1973, the claimant was readmitted to the hospital because of severe low back pain which was so serious she could not get out of bed. He stated,
Dr. Jack Edward Lungstrum, who treated the claimant, testified:
"A. Yes, it would.
"A. Yes.
"A. Yes."
It would be well to note here that in Berger v. Hahner, Foreman & Cale, Inc., 211 Kan. 541, 506 P.2d 1175, it was held:
We deem it unnecessary to pursue the appellants' contention further. The district court's conclusion that the claimant's disability was directly related to the accidental injury was supported by substantial evidence.
The appellants further contend there was no substantial evidence to support the district court's finding that the claimant was temporarily totally disabled for a period of up to 415 weeks. The point is not well taken. We again touch on the evidence.
The claimant testified as to her temporary total disability as follows:
"A. No, sir.
"Q. Tell the Examiner why not.
"Q. That is right after the accident?
"A. Yeah.
"Q. In 1972?
"A. Yes.
"Q. Go ahead.
Dr. Goering testified that the claimant will need treatment for an indefinite period of time and that she would not be able to return to work for an indefinite period.
"A. At this point I would say yes.
The record contains ample evidence to support the district court's finding of temporary total disability for a period of 415 weeks.
What has been said renders unnecessary a discussion of the other issues raised by the appellants.
The judgment is affirmed.