Opinion ID: 1280745
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Mrs Reich.

Text: (a) At the hearing on June 8, 1965, Mrs. Reich testified that on November 13, 1964, she slipped while working. She stated that, I twisted around and I tried to get hold of something, and I grabbed the wall so I did not fall down. Appellant points out that Mrs. Reich's signed statement to the insurance company indicated that she did not recall twisting. The statement reads, in part: ... I can't recall twisting or turning to either the right or left. It happened so fast, I really don't recall what happened to me.... I recall also grabbing for a wall .... Appellant also points out that the applicant did not mention this incident to her employer. (b) Mrs. Reich also testified at the compensation hearing that on November 19, 1964, while carrying between 20 to 30 pounds of meat-loaf pans she had to go through a narrow space between a machine and a truck. To go through this space she had to turn sideways and carry the pans with her right arm extended at shoulder height and her left arm across her body. She testified that she could not stand the pain and had to drop the pans. Appellant points out that this incident was never reported to the employer, the inference being that if it was not reported it never happened. In applicant's statement to the insurance adjuster she stated, I didn't report this to anyone at work. However, on cross-examination at the hearing applicant was asked: [11] Q. What about the fact that the statement indicates you didn't report this to anyone at work? A. No, I didn't report this to anybody. Just when I went home at noon I told my foreman, `I'm going home. I think I have my back injured,' and that's all. Q. What did you mean here, Mrs. Reich, when you stated, `I then wouldn'tcouldn't stand the pain any more on November 19, 1964, and went home. I didn't report this to anyone at work. The same day I saw Dr. Klein.' Did you report it to your foreman or didn't you? A. I just told him, `I'm leaving. I'm going home.' What I understand on the report, it's to go to the office and report this. Q. You told the foreman simply you were going home? A. I said, `I can't work any more' and he saw it, I couldn't work any more. I told him, `I have to go home,' and he said, `Yes.' Q. Now, you indicated that at the time of this incident with the pans you were carrying pans in accordion fashion, with your right arm extended, going between this machine and the hand truck and you felt pain so bad you had to drop the pans; is that correct? A. Yes. Q. But you didn't report this at the time; is that correct? A. No, I didn't. However, on redirect examination, the applicant testified: Q. Mrs. Reich, you testified that before going home on the 19th you said something to the foreman? A. Yes. Q. This is important that all of us understand exactly what you said to the foreman at that time. Will you tell us this exactly as you can recall what you said to him? A. Well, I said, `Hans, I have to go home because I think I hurt my back.' Q. And you were explaining before that when you refer to reporting, you considered reporting to mean to go into the office and notify someone in the office? A. Yes. The attorney general argues that when the written statement of a witness is inconsistent with his later testimony, the department may rely on the statement and reject the testimony on the theory that the more recent the event, the fresher and more accurate the memory. [12] Applicant persuasively argues, however, that the entire record reveals that she considered reporting to mean notification to the office, and that, therefore, her statements are not inconsistent and stand unrebutted. Furthermore, the foreman was not called as a witnesstherefore applicant argues that her testimony stands as a fact. [13] (c) Appellant points out that applicant's signed statement to the insurance adjuster did not mention the pan incident of November 19, 1964. Her statement reads: ... I finished out the day [November 13] despite this. Over the weekend, I took it easy. I stayed in bed and applied heat. The symptoms in my back stayed about the same not getting any better nor worse. I went to work on 11-16-64 and worked until noon on 11-19-64. This was my last day worked. However, on cross-examination at the hearing Mrs. Reich testified that she told the adjuster about the incident. Q. Do you recall whether or not you told the adjuster about this incident with the pans? A. I told him and he said, `That's not important any more,' and he asked me if he should put it down and I said, `I don't know.' I think we should put it down but he says it's not important any more. Q. Do you know that the statement contains nothing with regard to the pan incident? A. I know this because I told him and he said, `It's not important to take it down,' and I don't know nothing about insurances so I thought what he said was O. K. The attorney general again argues that Revels v. Industrial Comm . [14] entitles the commission to reject applicant's hearing testimony with regard to the pan incident because the earlier statement made no mention of it. However, in Revels the court was faced with a situation where earlier written statements conflicted with later hearing testimony. Arguably, however, there is no conflict here between the testimony and the statement but rather a situation where the earlier statement was not complete. It mentioned that applicant had to go home on November 19, 1964, because of pain, but it did not say what caused the pain. Furthermore, like the foreman, the insurance adjuster was not called to rebut Mrs. Reich's version of the conversation that went on between her and the adjuster. (d) Appellant points out that claimant did not give a history of the November 13, and November 19, 1964, incidents when she entered the hospital. There is no evidence in the record that the hospital inquired as to the cause of pain. Mrs. Reich testified that no one asked her. The hospital records read as follows: 40F admitted w/gradual onset of Lumbosacral pain & tenderness w/radiation to both lower extremity of one week duration. She has been carrying heavy loads in work on & off when she gradually felt some growing pains in L-sacral region w/radiation to both lower ext. She said she couldn't lift herself in bed; both legs hurt with a sort of pulling pain and that it hurts most in rt. side of the back. Pain has been not constant and it hurts her more during activity. Therefore, while the records refer to carrying heavy loads at the hearing Mrs. Reich testified to the precise incidents of November 13 and November 19, 1964. In the hospital records, the progress note on November 21, 1964, reads: Gradual onset of back pain 10 days ago subsided over nite& later recurring. (e) Dr. Bruno examined applicant in the hospital on November 22, 1964, and obtained a history from her. He was given no history of trauma at this time. A. My notes state that the patient had pain since Friday, the 13th, 1964. There was no history of trauma. She had pain from the low back to both lateral thighs. No paresthesias. Pain progressively worse until admission, and her pain was slightly relieved by bed rest. The inference, of course, is that if the incidents were not mentioned they never happened. (f) Mrs. Reich, in testifying at the hearing about the November 19, 1964, incident, stated that she stretched out her armsfelt pain and had to drop the pans. However, Dr. Bruno's notes of December 3, 1964, indicate that Mrs. Reich had pain when she bent over to pick up the pans. As she bent over to pick up pans patient felt pain in back. Appellant argues that these statements are conflicting. But are they? Mrs. Reich testified that her back hurt and she dropped the pansDr. Bruno's statement says that her back hurt when she bent over to pick up the pans from the floor. When considered in light of the testimony of Tamara Austers (which we discuss infra ) it appears that the above statements, when taken together, give a complete picture of the incident rather than conflicting versions of it. Is the fact that Mrs. Reich's back hurt, causing her to drop the pans, inherently inconsistent with the fact that her back hurt when she bent over to pick up the pans after they had fallen? (g) Dr. Bruno testified that on December 3, 1964, he received a history of trauma: Q. Doctor, when you obtained the history you made an entry of that on the hospital chart; is that correct? A. Yes. Q. What was the history that you obtained? A. I would have to go over the notes on the hospital chart. Q. Are they in the hospital record, Doctor? A. They should be. On the 3rd of December I state that patient stated she slipped at work approximately I week prior to admission. The Examiner: Q. All right. On December 3, 1964? A. Right. Q. State in hospital record that patient statesAnd what does she state? A. She slipped at work approximately 1 week prior to admission. She rested over the weekend. Then worked to Thursday noon. On Thursday the patient drops some pans. As she bent over to pick up the pans the patient felt pain in the back. The patient had to leave at noon because of pain. The patient had been here on a Saturday. The patient saw Dr. Klein on Thursday night, and the next paragraphpain is less. Meaning pain on that day was less than it was previously. The hospital record, the contents of which Dr. Bruno was testifying to, states: 12-3-64 Pt. now states that she slipped at work approx 1 week PTA. Pt. rested over weekend then worked to Thursday noon. On Thursday Pt. dropped some pans. As she bent over to pick up pans patient felt pain in back. Pt. had to leave at noon because of pain. Admitted here on Saturday Pt. saw Dr. Klein on Thursday night, pain less. There can be absolutely no question but what Mrs. Reich told Dr. Bruno on December 3, 1964, of both the slipping and the pan incident. However, on page 14 of the brief, appellant argues that Dr. Bruno according to his notes did not obtain a history about the slipping incident until sometime after January 8, 1965, which was the date of surgery. Appellant apparently bases this conclusion on Dr. Bruno's testimony on cross-examination. The Examiner: Q. You only got one history of trauma and that was the pan incident? A. Originally at that time, yes. Later on I got the other history of the slip without falling to the floor. Q. Was that subsequent to December 3, 1964, she related to the incident of slipping prior to the A. (Interposing) Yes. Obviously there is a conflict between Dr. Bruno's testimony on direct and cross-examination. However, in that the doctor was testifying as to the content of the hospital recordsit seems only logical and proper to look at that record to resolve the conflict. (h) Appellant also points out that Mrs. Reich stated in the statement to the insurance adjuster that she never had any previous back trouble of any kind. However, at the hearing she testified that she had experienced some back trouble. Q. (By Mr. Gillick) Now, Mrs. Reich, before this incident on November 13, 1964, when you slipped, had you previously had any trouble in your back? A. Well, I had a little pain once in a while fromlike everybody else gets a pain. Q. Had you ever required any hospital care for your back before? A. No. Q. Had you ever consulted a doctor about back trouble before? A. Yes, I was in a car accident once and I had blue spots on my back and I was treated for this. Q. Who treated you at that time? A. Dr. Gaenslen. On cross-examination: Q. Do you know what type of a back injury you had at that time? A. Well, I was treated for black spots. I was all black and blue on the side. It wasn't exactly my back. It was more my side (indicating). Q. Are you pointing to the right side? A. Yes. Q. More on the right side than in the back or in the front? A. It was right here (indicating). Q. Right on the side itself? A. Yes. It is appellant's contention that there is an inherent inconsistency between these statements. However, on this record it appears doubtful that the commission relied on Mrs. Reich's statements as support for its finding that the applicant has had numerous episodes of back pain prior to November 13, 1964. Rather, it seems that it relied on the statement which was contained in Dr. Coles' letter to the insurance carrier to the effect that Mrs. Reich had experienced frequent episodes of minor low back pain in the past.