Crane Enamelware Co. v. Dotson

Tennessee Supreme Court

Crane Enamelware Co. v. Dotson

20 S.W.2d 1045, 159 Tenn. 561, 6 Smith & H. 561, 1929 Tenn. LEXIS 10

CourtTennessee Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 19, 1929

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 20 S.W.2d 1045 (Crane Enamelware Co. v. Dotson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Tennessee Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Crane Enamelware Co. v. Dotson, 20 S.W.2d 1045, 159 Tenn. 561, 6 Smith & H. 561, 1929 Tenn. LEXIS 10 (Tenn. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice McKinney

delivered the opinion of the Court.

On September 19, 1925, Dotson recovered a judgment against the Crane Enamelware Company in the Circuit Court of Hamilton County, under the 'Workmen’s Compensation Act, for six dollars per week for a period of three hundred weeks. Upon appeal the judgment of the trial court was affirmed by this court in an opinion published in 152 Tenn., 461., On September 13, 1928, the Crane Enamelware Company filed a petition in the Circuit Court against D'otson seeking to have the matter of compensation readjudicated under authority of. section 38 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act.

The petitioner insists that he is entitled to have the compensation reduced on account of the increased wages which Dotson is earning. It is not charged in the petition that there has been an increase or decrease of incapacity due solely to the injury. Counsel for the company practically concedes that this question was decided adversely to his contention in Jernigam, v. Hartford Hosiery Mills, 149 Tenn., 241. In that case it was said:

“A showing of income-earning capacity by the use of other faculties, or members of the body, will not reduce the grade of the injury of the affected members or faculties, or the compensation provided.”

’It was further said that—

“We are of the opinion that the remedy provided by section 38 is intended to be restricted to the consideration and determination of whether or not there has been *563 an increase or decrease of incapacity due solely to the injury, effective since the date of the original award, and the inquiry being thus limited the evidence on such a hearing is properly so directed and confined.”

This is a correct construction of that section of the Act and we re-reaffirm what was said in that opinion.

Petitioner further contends that it should he relieved from making further payments for the reason that since the original judgment it has repeatedly demanded that Dotson submit to an operation for hernia at its expense. That matter was decided adversely to petitioner on the former hearing, and is res adjibdicaia.

A final judgment in a compensation case is like that in any other case with the exception provided in section. 38, and the petitioner does not bring itself within the terms of that section.

The trial court very properly sustained a demurrer to the petition and dismissed it, and his judgment in so doing will be affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Mr. Justice McKinney

delivered the opinion of the Court.

On September 19, 1925, Dotson recovered a judgment against the Crane Enamelware Company in the Circuit Court of Hamilton County, under the 'Workmen’s Compensation Act, for six dollars per week for a period of three hundred weeks. Upon appeal the judgment of the trial court was affirmed by this court in an opinion published in 152 Tenn., 461., On September 13, 1928, the Crane Enamelware Company filed a petition in the Circuit Court against D'otson seeking to have the matter of compensation readjudicated under authority of. section 38 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act.

The petitioner insists that he is entitled to have the compensation reduced on account of the increased wages which Dotson is earning. It is not charged in the petition that there has been an increase or decrease of incapacity due solely to the injury. Counsel for the company practically concedes that this question was decided adversely to his contention in Jernigam, v. Hartford Hosiery Mills, 149 Tenn., 241. In that case it was said:

“A showing of income-earning capacity by the use of other faculties, or members of the body, will not reduce the grade of the injury of the affected members or faculties, or the compensation provided.”

’It was further said that—

“We are of the opinion that the remedy provided by section 38 is intended to be restricted to the consideration and determination of whether or not there has been *563 an increase or decrease of incapacity due solely to the injury, effective since the date of the original award, and the inquiry being thus limited the evidence on such a hearing is properly so directed and confined.”

This is a correct construction of that section of the Act and we re-reaffirm what was said in that opinion.

Petitioner further contends that it should he relieved from making further payments for the reason that since the original judgment it has repeatedly demanded that Dotson submit to an operation for hernia at its expense. That matter was decided adversely to petitioner on the former hearing, and is res adjibdicaia.

A final judgment in a compensation case is like that in any other case with the exception provided in section. 38, and the petitioner does not bring itself within the terms of that section.

The trial court very properly sustained a demurrer to the petition and dismissed it, and his judgment in so doing will be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 S.W.2d 1045, 159 Tenn. 561, 6 Smith & H. 561, 1929 Tenn. LEXIS 10, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crane-enamelware-co-v-dotson-tenn-1929.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack