Opinion
No. 42815.
November 25, 1963.
1. Workmen's compensation — back injury — award allowing benefits for temporary total disability proper.
Award allowing benefits in back injury case for temporary total disability and rejecting claim for permanent partial disability was proper where workman was in substantially better physical condition than he had been prior to accident and surgery.
2. Workmen's compensation — medical benefits — properly rejected.
Claim for medical benefits was properly rejected because of doctor's noncompliance with law. Sec. 6998-08, Code 1942.
Headnotes as approved by Jones, J.
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Jefferson County; JAS. A. TORREY, Judge.
Arrington Arrington, Hazlehurst, for appellant.
I. The Workmen's Compensation Commission and the court below erred in failing to find that the appellant had a permanent partial disability as a result of his injury and in failing to make a reasonable award therefor, as the proof is clear and undisputed that the appellant suffered a 15% disability to his body as a whole as a result of his injury. Southeastern Construction Co. v. Dependent of Dodson, 247 Miss. 1, 153 So.2d 276; Sec. 6998-04, Code 1942.
Daniel, Coker Horton, Jackson, for appellees.
I. The Workmen's Compensation Commission and the court below did not err in failing to find that the appellant had a permanent partial disability as a result of his injury and in failing to make a reasonable award therefor, as the proof is clear and undisputed that the appellant suffered a fifteen (15) percent disability to his body as a whole as a result of his injury. Lloyd Ford Co. v. Price, 240 Miss. 250, 126 So.2d 529; Malone v. Ingalls Shipbuilding Corp., 240 Miss. 319, 127 So.2d 403; Rathborne, Hair Ridgeway Box Co. v. Green, 237 Miss. 588, 115 So.2d 674; Southeastern Construction Co. v. Dependent of Dodson, 247 Miss. 1, 153 So.2d 276; Sec. 6998-04 et seq., Code 1942.
II. An award should not be made for the payment of appellant's medical expenses in the instant case. Sec. 6998-04 et seq., Code 1942.
On November 6, 1961, appellant went to work as a roustabout for Scoggins. On the 8th, he was engaged in building a board road and said he felt something in his back like he sprained a muscle while lifting a board. He finished the work for that day but the next day he stayed at home because he felt he could not work. Later, on the 11th, he went to see Dr. Harper at Fayette. Dr. Harper gave him a shot for pain and sent him to the Charity Hospital at Natchez, where he was treated by Dr. J.L. Henderson. There the doctor found him suffering with spondylolysis, which the doctor says is the separation of the front part of the vertebrae from the back part so that you have an unstable back. This condition existed before the accident here involved. After trying conservative treatment, the doctor fused his back.
The doctor did not make any report to the proper authorities about his examination. He stated that he considered the man as a charity patient. He was not treating the patient at the request of the employer. Employer had received no request for medical assistance.
On the hearing, the Commission overruled the holding of the attorney-referee that there was no evidence to sustain a claim for an injury received in the course of the employment. The Commission held that the evidence was sufficient to show that he was injured in the course of his employment and allowed him total disability from the date of his injury through February 21, 1962. The claim for permanent partial disability was denied. They held that since the doctor had not complied with the law, any claim for medical benefits was denied.
The matter was appealed to the circuit court and there the ruling of the Commission was affirmed, and it is now brought here.
There seems to be no dispute as to the facts. The only physician that testified was Dr. J.L. Henderson and upon his testimony the Commission, in its opinion, stated and held:
"The treating physician, Dr. J.L. Henderson, an orthopedic surgeon, stated that `the claimant's back is in a more stable condition since surgery than it was prior thereto, but is stiff' and that, in his opinion, the claimant suffered a 15% permanent partial disability as a result of his operation. The doctor actually testified to the following question:
`Q. Did you assign his percentage of permanent partial disability?
`A. I figure he was a fifteen percent permanent partial disability, not as a result of his injury, but as a result of the work we had to do on him, because the back will be stable; but in spite of that his back will be better than it was before he hurt his back. It's more stable. His chances of having trouble with it from now on should be less than before he got hurt. He had no nerve root damage that I know of.'
"In view of the foregoing, it would appear that although the claimant does have some disability, he is in substantially better physical condition than he was prior to the accident; consequently, he would not have any resulting physical disability as a result of the accident."
(Hn 1) The Court has given careful consideration to this case, and we think the cases of Rathborne, Hair Ridgeway Box Co. v. Green, 237 Miss. 588, 115 So.2d 674; and Malone v. Ingalls Shipbuilding Corp., 240 Miss. 319, 127 So.2d 403, are controlling. (Hn 2) In disallowing medical expenses, the Commission followed Sec. 6998-08, Miss. Code 1942, and Ingalls Shipbuilding Corp. v. Byrd, 215 Miss. 234, 60 So.2d 645. The case is affirmed.
Affirmed.
McGehee, C.J., and Ethridge, McElroy and Brady, JJ., concur.