Case Name: Jackson Fourseam Mining Co. v. Hurst et al.
Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Kentucky
Decision Date: 1933-06-13
Citations: 249 Ky. 755
Docket Number: 
Parties: Jackson Fourseam Mining Co. v. Hurst et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Kentucky Reports
Volume: 249
Pages: 755–757

Head Matter:
Jackson Fourseam Mining Co. v. Hurst et al.
(Decided June 13, 1933.)
FELIX S. DUMAS and HENRY L. SPENCER for appellant. -
A. H. PATTON and A. S. JOHNSON for appellees.

Opinion:
OpiNiou of the Court by
Judge Clay
Affirming.
On June 2, 1930, Bruce Hurst, while working as night watchman for the Jackson Fourseam Mining Company, 'was stung in the left eye by an insect, and thereafter applied to the Workmen's Compensation Board for the adjustment of his claim for compensation. The board found that his eyesight had been impaired to the extent of 25 per cent, by a former injury, and awarded him compensation at the rate of $9.75 per week for a period of 75 weeks, and $100 for hospital expenses. On appeal to the. circuit court the award was affirmed, and from that judgment this appeal is prosecuted.
Tlie evidence heard by the board is, in brief, as follows: Dr.' B. M. Brown deposed that be treated Hurst for an injury to bis left eye on June 2, 1930. At that time be bad a large ulcerated wound of the cornea in the temporal side of the pupilar area, and bis eye was acutely inflamed. For this injury be treated Hurst up to July 23, 1930. His vision both then and at the time be testified was 10/200, which is considered industrial blindness. His office records showed that be treated Hurst for an injury received in bis left eye in the year 1926. At that time be reported that bis vision was 20/200, which was considered by the Workmen's Compensation Board as industrial blindness. Each of these injuries contributed some to the impairment that existed at the time be testified, but bow much be could not say. Hurst testified that be bad an injury to bis left eye in 1926, and was treated by Dr. Brown. Thereafter while employed as night watchman in making bis rounds on the premises a large bug stung him in bis left eye, and be again reported to Dr. Brown for treatment. For bis first injury be received compensation for 65 per cent, of his earnings for the time be- was off, which was either four or five weeks. After that he went back to work and the condition of bis eye was as good as it ever was. There was no complaint of bis work, and be received the same wages as be received prior to the first injury. W. Ei Strong, bookkeeper for appellant's predecessor, testified that after the first injury Hurst hauled coal and turned in bis reports every night. During that time Hurst did as much work, and hauled as much coal, as any man they ever bad. Mize Hensley and Granville Riley testified substantially to the same effect. J. W. Adams, appellant's manager, testified that be was in charge of the company at the time Hurst received bis first injury, and also at the time be received bis second injury. His duties were to start the pump and keep the pump going and make the rounds and punch the clock. He did that both before and after the second injury.
Appellant takes the position that, inasmuch as Dr. Brown testified that Hurst was industrially blind as a result of the first injury, the board was without authority to award him compensation for injury to an eye that was already blind. If this bad been all the testimony bearing on the question, there would doubtless be much merit in tlie contention. There is further evidence, however, that Hnrst went back to work in a short time after the first injury, that he did as much as any watchman the company had ever had, and that his vision was as good as it ever was. On this showing the Workmen's Compensation Board found that his vision was impaired to the extent of 25 per cent, by the first injury and awarded compensation on the basis that his eyesight was 75 per cent, impaired by the second injury. Clearly there was some competent evidence supporting the board's findings of fact, and that being true its findings are conclusive, where, as here, there is no claim of fraud or mistake. Wallins Creek Collieries Co. v. Hicks, 216 Ky. 262, 287 S. W. 713.
Judgment affirmed.