Court Opinion

ID: 9674125
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:23:27.847557+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:11:05.609618
License: Public Domain

George Rose Smith, J., dissenting. I would remand the case to the Commission for its determination of a question of fact that was not reached at the original hearing. The appellee was sent to Dr. Watson for examination only. The required examination proved to involve elaborate procedures that kept the patient in the hospital for more than a week and that were extremely painful. Partly, if not wholly, to alleviate this pain Dr. Watson prescribed sedatives and the use of nicotinic acid. He also told the patient that he should take routine exercise and avoid overexertion in the future. It seems to me that the record presents an issue of fact as to whether these matters amounted to treatment furnished by the employer, If the Commission should hold that the medication and advice were merely incidental to the diagnostic examination and did not amount to the giving of treatment, that holding would in my opinion he supported by substantial evidence. Consequently I think the majority have decided an issue of fact that should be determined by the Commission alone.