Court Opinion

ID: 9739979
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:25:06.604276+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:15.185013
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion.
Mote, J.
I am unable to agree with my brethren who, .by a majority decision and opinion, have affirmed the Award of the Full Industrial Board of In-diana, because, in my opinion,.there is a total lack of evidence to support the Award. Although the Hearing Member, in his finding and award, did not find from the evidence that appellee was “justified in obtaining the services of his own doctor because of the circumstances in said cause”, the Full Board made such finding despite the fact that the record does not reveal any evidence or facts to support the same.
§40-1225, Burns’ Indiana Statutes Annotated, in vogue at the time of the accidental injury on January 7,1963, provides in part as follow's:
“Sec. 25. After an injury and prior to an adjudication of permanent impairment, the employer shall furnish or cause to be furnished, free of charge to. the employee, an attending physician *507for the treatment of his injuries; .and in addition thereto- such surgical, hospital and nursing services and supplies as the attending physician or the Industrial Board may deem necessary; If the employee is requested or required by the employer to submit to treatment outside the county of employment, said employer shall also pay the reasonable- expense of travel, food and lodging necessary during the travel, but not to exceed the amount paid at the time' of said travel by the State of Indiana to its employees.
“During the period of temporary total disability resulting from the injury, the employer shall furnish such physician, services and supplies, and the industrial board may, on proper application of either party, require that, treatment by such physieian and such services and supplies be furnished by or on behalf of the employer as the industrial board may deem reasonably necessary. If after an employee’s injury has been adjudicated by agreement or award on the basis of permanent partial impairment and within the statutory period for review in such case as provided in section' 45 of this.'act, the employer may continue, to furnish a physician or surgeon and other medical services and supplies -and the industrial board may within such statutory period for review as. provided in section 45 of this act, on a proper application of either party, require that treatment by such physician or surgeon and other medical services and supplies be furnished by and on behalf of the employer as the industrial board may deem necessary to limit or reduce the amount and extent of such impairment. The refusal of the employee to accept such services and supplies, when so provided by or on behalf of the employer, shall bar the employee from all compensation otherwise payable during the period of such refusal and his right to prosecute - any proceeding under this act shall be suspended and abated until such refusal ceases; no compensation for permanent total impairment, permanent partial impairment, permanent disfigurement or death shall be paid or payable for that part or portion of such impairment, disfigurement or death which is the result of the *508failure of such employee to accept such treatment, services and supplies:...
“If an emergency or because of the employer’s failure to provide such attending physician or such surgical, hospital or nurse’s services and supplies or such treatment by spiritual means or prayer, as herein specified, or for other good reason, a physician other than that provided.by the employer treats the injured employee within the first one hundred eighty [180] days, or necessary and proper surgical, hospital, or nurse’s services and supplies are procured within said period, the reasonable cost of such service^ and supplies shall, subject to approval of the industrial board, be paid by the employer.” (Our emphasis.)
The record reveals the following pertinent facts as set forth in appellant’s brief to which appellee has hot objected.
“It was stipulated and agreed by the parties that the appellee had an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of his employment with appellant company on January 7, 1963, at which time he suffered a small laceration of imbedded steel in .the left second metatarsal of the left index finger.
“The accident occurred at approximately 10:00 P.M., on January 7, 1963. The appellee immediately went to the First Aid Department at which time he received treatment. He reported back the next day and was treated by the company nurse. At that time, Mr. Eckelman, the Safety Director for the company, made arrangements for X-rays which were taken by Dr. Imhoff. Arrangements were made by the company for employee to go to Ball Memorial Hospital on Janüary 9, 1963, where he was examined by Dr. Ralph O. Butz, surgeon of Muncie, Indiana. Both the testimony of the appellee and Dr. Butz agreed that at the time of this examination appellee complained of' pain in the area of the left index finger. Dr. Butz gave a local anesthetic which was introduced into the area of the foreign body and the appellee was told by the doctor to come back in two (2) days. He ré*509ported back in two days still complaining of pain, however he continued to work during this period of time. In the appellee’s testimony, he pointed out that he asked the doctor whether or not he was going to remove the foreign body and the doctor at that time told him no. The doctor, in his testimony, pointed out that he informed the appellee that the healing process took time and that it would be wise to wait and see whether or not it would take care of itself. Arrangements were made for the appellee to come on January 25, which he did, and he was still complaining of pain. The appellee was very insistent upon having the foreign body removed, and the doctor, in his testimony, pointed out the reasons that he felt that it would be best to wait; but due to the fact that the appellee wanted it removed, the doctor made arrangements for the appellee to go to Ball Memorial Hospital on February 12,1963, at which time they would prepare him for surgery on February 13. Arrangements were made in the presence of the appellee for this surgery; and on cross-examination of appellee, he admitted that at the time he left the doctor’s office on January 25, he knew that arrangements were made for surgery and, at this time, no objections were made to the doctor. The following day, he contacted a doctor of his own choice, Dr. Painter of Winchester, Indiana, and made arrangements for surgery on his own. On February 1, Drs. Painter and Jordan performed the surgery at the Randolph County Hospital in Winchester, Indiana. He did not notify the company that he was going to have the surgery performed nor did he notify Dr. Butz. During this entire period of time, the appellee only lost one day from work, that being the date of surgery on February 1.
“In the instant case, the employer immediately furnished treatment to the employee on the date of the injury at the First Aid Department. He was again seen the next day on January 8 by the company nurse in First Aid, and X-rays were taken by Dr. Imhoff. On January 9, 1968, the employee was treated by Dr. Ralph O. Butz at. the Ball .Memorial Hospital in Muneie. At the time that Dr. Butz testified in the case, appellee’s counsel *510admitted the • qualifications of Dr. Butz and no time .was. any evidence. introduced by the appellee showing that Dr. Butz was not competent to furnish medical treatment.”
Appellee insists that he was justified in changing physicians because surgery for the excision of a piece of metal from his hand was arranged on January 25, 1963, for February 12, 1963, in the Ball Memorial Hospital. Appellee made no objection to anyone connected with appellant to .the surgery set for February 12,1963, and we think he gave his tacit approval thereto. Thereafter, however, he went to a doctor of his own selection and had the surgery performed. Neither the doctors of his own selection, who performed the surgery, not any other expert, testified or presented any evidence that there was an emergency or that the proposed surgery should be performed prior to the time of the arrangements made by appellant’s physician. There is no evidence of an emergency and, in view of the admitted fact that appellee continued to work, even though he suffered 'pain, which is' a subjective symptom, in our opinion, does not supply necessary and essential evidence to support the finding that appellee was justified in changing doctors, i
I would reverse the Award of the Full Industrial Board.. !
Note. — Reported in 202 N. E. 2d 180.