Opinion
No. 2815
August 26, 1958
Appeal from the District Court of Natrona County, Wyoming, The Honorable T.C. Daniels, Judge.
Affirmed.
For the appellant, the cause was submitted upon the brief and oral argument of Robert R. Rose, Jr. of Casper, Wyoming.
For the appellee, the cause was submitted upon the brief of Thomas O. Miller, Attorney General, and Sterling A. Case, Assistant Attorney General, of Cheyenne, Wyoming, and oral argument by Mr. Case.
Heard before Blume, C.J. and Harnsberger and Parker, JJ.
Where it is found that the employee is permanently and totally disabled so far as hard work or manual work is concerned, but that he might do light work of a special nature not generally available, the burden is upon the employer to show that such special work is available to the employee. There is no merit, however, in the suggestion that the burden was on plaintiff to prove not only that he could not work at his former occupation, but that he was totally incapacitated from obtaining remunerative employment of any kind. Big Horn County v. Iles, 56 Wyo. 442, 110 P.2d 284. Workmen's Compensation Laws operate to relieve persons suffering from misfortunes of a part of the burden and to distribute it to the industries and mediately to those served by them. They are deemed to be in the public interest and should be construed liberally in furtherance of the purpose for which they were enacted and, if possible, so as to avoid incongruous or harsh results. McConnelly v. Murphy Bros., 45 Wyo. 289, 18 P.2d 629.
POINTS OF COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE.Since the trial court found that claimant-appellant by the evidence submitted has not established that she has sustained a permanent disability, it is therefore the contention of appellee that the lower court's finding that claimant's application for permanent total disability is denied, should be affirmed. Mitchell v. T.L. James Co., Inc., 176 So. 246; In re Pero v. Collier-Latimer, Inc., 49 Wyo. 131, 52 P.2d 690. This court is not a trier of facts, that if the evidence is conflicting and there is any substantial evidence to support the judgment below that judgment will be affirmed. First National Bank v. Barrett, 54 Wyo. 394, 402; Kinney v. Barnhisel, 53 Wyo. 58. When the medical question involved is not uncomplicated and the fact finding must be done in a realm which lies most approximately in the field of technical knowledge of medical experts, testimony of that character can hardly safely be ignored. Ludlow v. Wortham Machinery Co., 71 Wyo. 311, 257 P.2d 358. There was no lay testimony or evidence. Even if there had been such evidence, it would not have been sufficient to establish the fact of causal connection. This issue presented a field of scientific inquiry where expert medical testimony is required to furnish the answer. Drahulich v. Industrial Commission, 137 Ohio St. 82, 27 N.E.2d 932.
OPINION
Without contest the employee-claimant received successive monthly awards for total temporary disability occasioned by injuries received in falling to the floor while engaged in compensable employment. However, her right to receive award for total permanent disability was disputed and the trial court found she was not totally permanently disabled; that she was only supporting one of her three minor children; and denied her total permanent disability claim. The employee appeals, but rests her appeal entirely upon the lower court's alleged erroneous determination of facts, although those findings were made upon conflicting testimony. Under these circumstances, it is only necessary to search the record to ascertain if it contains any substantial evidence to support the trial court's conclusions and judgment.
One doctor testified that he and another doctor with whom he had consulted had been unable to find any symptoms of actual injury, and he believed that the claimant was suffering from hysteria and possibly malingering. In this a third doctor concurred. There was also medical testimony that hysteria was the cause of the claimant's disablement, not the injury, and the physician testified that he could not say she was unable to do any type of gainful employment.
Possibly the strongest testimony to support the court's judgment was that given by a further medical witness who testified that any disability the claimant has is not organic; that it is not the result of the accident which gave rise to her compensation claim; that the claimant is malingering; that in her present condition she can and is able to carry out activities to her benefit. In other words, she is able to pursue a gainful occupation and that she does not have a total permanent disability. The fact that another professional witness disagreed with this testimony in whole or in part is of no importance. The court accepted the witnesses whose testimony is summarized hereinabove as being qualified experts and evidently elected to believe them. Their testimony was substantial and sufficient to support the court's denying claimant's application for award of total permanent disability. In addition, the testimony of one doctor recounted the claimant's actions while she was undergoing examination where she simulated a fainting spell by falling to the floor but only after placing her hands behind her to break the force of the fall. Of course this does not inspire confidence in the claimant nor in any of her subjective evidence.
Regarding appellant's claim that the court erred in finding that only one of her three children was her dependent, this conforms to the claimant's own statement that two of her children had been staying with her sister-in-law practically ever since they were born, although in answer to counsel's suggestive question, she later said that before her injury she had sent $30 a month and bought some clothes for the children. However, this point is not of importance in view of the conclusions which we reach.
We find the decision of the court amply supported by substantial evidence and that the trial court committed no error. The judgment of the lower court is therefore affirmed.
AFFIRMED.