Court Opinion

ID: 9565187
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 19:16:33.160812+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:27.267398
License: Public Domain

Felton, J.,
dissenting. Under the circumstances of this case, the question whether the claimant had silicosis should have been referred to the Medical Board. The law provides that silicosis must be demonstrated by x-ray or autopsy. In this case the effort was made to prove it by x-ray. While the single director found that Dr. R. F. Payne made the x-ray of claimant, such finding is contrary to the record. The doctor testified that he did not make the x-rays and that they were made by the technician at Battey Hospital, who did not testify at the hearing. There was no identification of the x-ray as that of claimant except by reference to the hospital records, which was insufficient. The evidence of identification of the picture was in the nature of hearsay and was without probative value. There was, therefore, no demonstration of claimant’s silicosis by x-ray, as required by law. Wigmore on Evidence, 3rd Ed., Vol. III, § 795 (4), p. 191; Clark v. Reising, 341 Mo. 282 (107 S. W. 2d, 33); U. S. v. La Favor, 72 Fed. 2d, 827. Inasmuch as the court is holding that there is no medical controversy in this case, it seems to me that it should clearly define the term “medical con-*866troversy” and explain when such a question is in issue for the future guidance of the State Board of Workmen’s Compensation. If I am wrong in thinking that a medical question was involved, the award would still be illegal because without evidence to support it.