Court Opinion

ID: 9868542
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-26 18:40:28.284617+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:51.470342
License: Public Domain

*407Ok Petition to ReheaR.
Section 20 of the Compensation Act is plain and expresses what we conceive to he the clear legislative intent. It provides in a case like the one nnder consideration that the employe “shall he entitled to compensation only for the disability that wonld have resulted from the latter accident if the earlier injury had not occurred.” The question is, To what extent was the use of petitioner’s arm impaired by the latter injury. While this direct question was not asked the physicians, we interpret the testimony of Dr. Newell, in his examination in chief, to he directed to the impairment by the latter injury. Such seems to have been the construction placed upon his testimony by the trial court, and this seems to us to be reasonable, because an arm out of socket at the shoulder is practically worthless. While the testimony is not as direct and clear as it might have been upon the crucial question, we are of the opinion that under all of the facts and circumstances appearing there is some evidence to support the decree. Dillinger himself testified that while his elbow was stiff, he had full use of his arm before the last injury and now has no use of it.
In the original opinion we made the following preliminary statement: “If the use of petitioner’s arm was impaired 85 per cent as a result of said injury of July 16, 1930, then the judgment of the trial court is correct.” If petitioner had not previously to July 16, 1930, injured his arm, we are of the opinion that its impairment would be just as great as it now is. The real issue in this case was very much beclouded' by the interrogation of witnesses as to the impairment of the arm by the first injury, which the statute expressly provides shall not be *408considered in determining the extent of the impairment by the last injury, whether the disability be total or partial.
In the cases of Knoxville Knitting Mills v. Gaylon, 148 Tenn., 228, and Shelbyville v. Kendrick, 161 Tenn., 149, referred to in the original opinion, previous injuries had impaired the use of the members involved, but by later injuries the use of the members had been entirely destroyed. The court held that no deductions could be allowed for the previous injuries. In the instant case the latter injury instead of totally destroying the member only impaired it to the extent of 85 per cent, and' following the express provision of section 20', no deduction on account of the first injury can be made in awarding compensation for the second injury, regardless of whether it totally or partially destroyed the use of the member. The reasons for the construction given the statute are fully set forth in the cases cited above.
Complaint is made of the failure of the court to specifically pass upon the third assignment of error to the effect that the loss of the use of the arm was due to the failure of petitioner to follow the instructions of the attending physician. As pointed out in the original opinion, the only question pressed before the trial court was the amount of compensation to be awarded. The trial court did not directly pass upon the matter involved in this assignment, but he necessarily passed upon it indirectly, otherwise he could not have awarded compensation. Taking the record as a whole, we cannot say that petitioner wilfully disobeyed the instructions of Dr. Ebert. While his testimony in a way supports this contention, Dr. Ebert testified that he made a good job of *409setting the arm, and that petitioner now has a good arm, which is contrary to the testimony of the other physicians.
The petition to rehear is without merit, and will be denied.