Court Opinion

ID: 9720406
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 08:29:22.817275+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:17.483355
License: Public Domain

Kendall, P. J.
Appellant has filed an earnest and able brief on its Petition for Rehearing in which is s,ought a reconsideration of the questions decided adversely to its contentions.
In the Petition for Rehearing, appellant contends that this court erred in two particulars in its decision. First, in holding that Dr. Worley’s testimony was of probative value since one of his answers was partially based upon a case history given him regarding the unconsciousness of appellee at the time of injury, which was not proven. Secondly, that the court erred in holding that the doctor, in testifying, meant “impairment” when in fact he used the word “disability” in describing appellee’s injury. These contentions were briefed in appellant’s brief and were argued and were considered by this court in making its decision.
Appellant strenuously argues that Dr. Worley’s opinion had no probative value because it was partially based *56upon the history obtained by him to the effect that the injury sustained by appellee caused him to be rendered unconscious at the time and that there was no evidence that unconsciousness occurred, and further that since there is no evidence in the record of unconsciousness, the award should not be sustained and that a rehearing be granted.
Appellant relies upon the following cases to substantiate his contention: Hirst v. Chevrolet Muncie Division, etc. (1941), 110 Ind. App. 22, 33 N. E. 2d 733; Magazine v. Shull (1945), 116 Ind. App. 79, 60 N. E. 2d 611; Town of Newburgh v. Jones (1945), 115 Ind. App. 320, 58 N. E. 2d 938. We recognize the rule of law announced in each of the above-cited cases to the effect that medical testimony opinions are of no probative value in themselves when based upon unknown or unproven assumed facts.
Appellant, however, fails to give consideration to all of the testimony of Dr Worley and fails to realize that the evidence in this case is most distinguishable from the facts cited in the cases which they rely upon. It cannot be overlooked that in describing the appellee’s condition the doctor testified extensively that appellee had a post concussion syndrome with post hemorrhage, atrophy of the brain, which resulted in the swelling of the brain and edema thereof; that the brain was damaged to the point where it would not be normal and his brain was permanently damaged and that the doctor further testified that probably if appellant had never sustained the blow on the head, the cyst would never have been broken and the brain surrounding the cyst would have never been permanently damaged as a result of the injury. This testimony of the physician the Industrial Board had a right to and did believe, and, in our opinion, renders unimportant the case history *57which the doctor referred to in regard to unconsciousness. Since the appellant strongly maintains that this court overlooked the doctor’s testimony, we quote the pertinent portions of the evidence from the record.
“. . . Q. Is the concussion caused from being hit with the iron bar ?
“A. Yes, it caused him to lapse into a coma.
“Q. Now, as a question as to his condition today, you knew him prior to the accident and considering his condition as it is today, what in your opinion would be the per cent, if any, of permanent partial impairment to him as a whole man?
“A. Well, at the present time unless his brain improves, which I am almost sure it will not, he has about an 85% permanent disability. I doubt if this boy will ever be able to work again, on a full time job where there is any condition where he has any type of responsibility at anytime, because still the subject involved still has fainting spells and still has lapses of memory at times.
“Q. Doctor, describe his condition at the present time.
“A. His condition at the present time is post-concussion syndrome with post hemorrhage, atrophy of the brain, in other words in lay terms he has been hit on the head, has had an acute injury to the brain, brain swelling and edema of the brain, damaged to the point where his brain will not return to norman, and this man’s brain is permanently damaged. Can I account for anything I am saying here ?
“Q. Yes.
“A. This man in my opinion had a cyst condition, regardless of this condition prevailing at the time he was operated on, probably never sustained the blow I think the cyst would have never broken and the brain surrounding the cyst would have never been permanently damaged as a result of this injury. And as far as any mental deficiency is concerned, as I mentioned previously I had known the boy two or three years and his mental *58condition was that of a normal boy who had the schooling he had had and the family background and environment of anyone in his walk of life and he has definitely changed since the accident. In my opinion the boy has an 85 % permanent disability, which will never change, so far as that is concerned or will change very little, those are points. If he was a laborer on a farm or in any work have to be careful he didn’t have a fainting spell where' he might injure himself, at the present time his family said they have to be with him all time almost, as the fainting spells I think are more or less sudden, they don’t know when he is. going to have them.
“Q. Now Doctor can you ■ state' Whether or not these conditions which you described were caused by the blow on the head by the iron bar?
■ “A. As I mentioned, I had the history of a previous congenital deformity and I think he had the accident, causing brain damage, the blow on the head. It is my opinion his present status, his mental, his physical and degree of mental disability is the result of this accident and no other result.”
The evidence was uncontradicted that appellee was hit on the head with a pipe while working. We cannot overlook the answers given by the doctor to the questions regarding the present condition of appellee in -the above- questions and answers, which,- in our opinion, makes this case distinguishable from cases cited.
In reference.'to the second contention which appellant maintained that the court erred in not • folkrwing the opinion of this court, in the case of Kenwood Erec. Co. v. Cowsert (1953), 124 Ind. App. 165, 115 N. E. 2d 507, we re-affirm our position that upon a close study of the Kenwood case, supra, as compared to this case, that the Kenwood case, supra, doqs not-substantiate appellant’s position but does substantiate that'óf the appellee.
Dr.’Worley h.ad attended appellee for-more than two or three years, had had an opportunity to observe him, *59his personality and mann.er of conduct, the condition he' was in when admitted, to the hospital. When the doctor was interrogated, he was asked as to the “impairment” of appellee, and, in answer thereto, he described it in terms of “disability”. In accordance with the Kenwood case, supra, it seems reasonable to this court for the board to have construed Dr. Worley’s testimony in its more common and generic usage with the intention that it relate only to the functional loss of appellee’s body as described by the act as impairment. From Dr. Worley’s testimony, we cannot say, in view of the Kenwood case, supra, that Dr. Worley did not use the word “disability” in its more common usage and intended it to relate only to the functional loss of appellee’s- body. •
We have carefully examined each of appellant’s contentions and believe that they are not substantiated by the evidence and by prior holdings of this and .the Supreme • Court.
Petition for rehearing denied.
Note. — Reported in 129 N. E. 2d 134.
Rehearing denied 130 N. E. 2d 73.