Ward Furniture Mfg. Co. v. Reather

Citations: 234 Ark. 151; 350 S.W.2d 691; 1961 Ark. LEXIS 547Docket: 5-2451

Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas; November 13, 1961; Arkansas; State Supreme Court

Lead Opinion SummaryLead Opinion Original

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The legality of a Circuit Court Order remanding a claim to the Workmen’s Compensation Commission is examined, involving John P. Heather, an employee of Ward Furniture Manufacturing Company, who claimed total permanent disability due to respiratory damage from workplace dust exposure. After becoming ill in September 1956 and filing a claim, the Commission initially allowed it based on extensive witness testimony. The employer appealed, and on January 11, 1960, the Circuit Court found the evidence insufficient for an award but also inadequate for a denial, thus remanding the case for further hearings and allowing both parties to present additional evidence.

After the remand, on August 3, 1960, new lay and medical testimonies were introduced. Dr. Fose indicated that Heather's lung condition was caused by dust exposure, while Dr. Darnall, representing the employer, argued that Heather’s condition did not stem from his employment. The Commission ultimately disallowed Heather's claim on August 31, 1960, asserting that the Circuit Court ruling indicated insufficient evidence for a compensable injury. The Supreme Court has established that findings of fact by the Commission, supported by substantial evidence, cannot be disturbed on appeal. In this case, despite additional evidence, the burden remained on Heather to demonstrate his injury resulted from his employment, which he failed to do.

Claimant's testimony before Referee Maner contributed little to his case. Mr. Rose's testimony was deemed weak and was decisively contradicted by Dr. Darnall's strong evidence. Consequently, the claim was denied. The claimant appealed to the Circuit Court, which vacated the Commission’s Order and remanded the case for further investigation. The claimant sought compensation for a disability allegedly caused by dust from sanding operations in the employer’s factory. Initially, the referee denied the claim, citing insufficient proof of injury related to employment. However, the full commission later allowed the claim, which was subsequently appealed. The court, on January 11, 1960, remanded the case for a rehearing due to inadequate medical evidence and an inconclusive record.

Upon return to the commission, Referee Maner held a hearing that included testimonies from the claimant and two doctors. The commission concluded on August 31, 1960, that the new evidence did not substantiate the claim and ruled for denial, adhering to the court's prior finding of insufficient records. The court agreed with the commission and noted that the previous order had not been fulfilled. Thus, the case was remanded again, instructing the commission to employ a qualified medical examiner to obtain specialized medical testimony regarding the claimant's disability's connection to his employment.

The claimant has worked since 1948 in an area with significant dust exposure from sanding, which is uncontested. The respondent's doctor acknowledged the claimant's incapacity but did not specify the cause, focusing only on the pulmonary tree's condition. The claimant's medical evidence, primarily from Dr. Thompson, proposed several potential diagnoses for the disability, including work-related allergies, fibrotic lung conditions, bronchiectasis, and suspected tuberculosis.

Dr. Thompson referred the claimant to Dr. Hollis at the Arkansas Tuberculosis Sanitorium, who reported no evidence of silicosis or tuberculosis and noted no significant pulmonary insufficiency. Dr. Hollis did observe some pulmonary emphysema, which Dr. Darnall also confirmed as minimal but typical for the claimant’s age. Although parts of Dr. Thompson’s testimony could suggest a basis for a service-connected disability, the overall testimony was deemed to lack the substantial proof necessary for a claim, leading the court to view it as merely presenting possibilities. 

The court recognized the complexity of the case, emphasizing the admitted disability of the claimant and the potential for medical evidence to support his claims if further developed. It highlighted that the current evidence is predominantly one-sided, with Dr. Darnall's testimony contradicting the claimant's theory, and noted the potential for misdiagnosis in complex medical situations. 

The court decided to remand the case to the commission for additional evidence, underscoring its role to ensure all necessary proof is adequately gathered for fair consideration of the issues. It asserted that the Workmen’s Compensation Commission should actively investigate and gather evidence, rather than merely accept what is presented, as mandated by the Arkansas Statutes Annotated.

Sec. 81-1823(b) mandates the commission to conduct necessary investigations regarding claims. Additionally, Sec. 81-1327 allows the commission to investigate or conduct hearings in a manner that best determines the rights of the parties involved. The court remanded the record for rehearing, directing the commission to arrange for the claimant’s examination by a qualified medical specialist and to obtain his testimony. The commission previously deemed the record insufficient to support the award, adhering to the court's prior decision that the original evidence was inadequate. Consequently, the commission reversed its earlier decision and denied the claim. The court clarified that it did not intend to restrict the commission’s future judgment following the introduction of additional evidence but rather sought to grant the commission discretion in considering all testimony presented. The court vacated the commission's award and denial, remanding the case with orders to comply with the court's directives. The employer appealed the Circuit Court's order, which aimed for a thorough investigation of the facts. The Circuit Court’s initial order lacked clarity, but the subsequent order explicitly outlined the commission's responsibilities. The case involves determining whether the claimant’s injury arose from his employment and whether he qualifies for compensation, referencing the precedent set in Solid Steel Scissors Co. v. Kennedy. The commission is empowered to gather necessary evidence under Sec. 81-1343 of the Arkansas Workmen's Compensation Act. The commission's role is emphasized as a diligent effort to ascertain facts and apply the law, with assurance that the case will be comprehensively developed under the clarified court order. The commission's opinion acknowledges that the evidence is undisputed, focusing on whether the testimonies constitute substantial proof of the claimant’s injury in relation to his employment.

The Referee's conclusion that the claimant did not meet the burden of proof regarding an employment-related injury is contested. Evidence indicates that the claimant's work environment contributed to a lung infection, and it is acknowledged that he became disabled at work, sought medical treatment, and has not returned to employment since September 25, 1956. While the claimant has not definitively shown he has silicosis, he has a lung infection, and doctors in Booneville confirmed signs of pulmonary emphysema, characterized by lung vessel damage typically caused by excessive expiration efforts. The claimant is currently deemed wholly disabled, with uncertainty regarding the permanence of his condition. There is a suggestion that with appropriate treatment away from dust exposure, he may recover. Consequently, it is concluded that the claimant has sustained a compensable injury, warranting compensation at 65% of his earnings at the time of departure from work, capped at $25.00 weekly. Additionally, it is noted that Dr. Darnall did not perform a bronchiectasis examination or related procedures.