Indiana Power & Water Co. v. Miller

Indiana Court of Appeals

Indiana Power & Water Co. v. Miller

127 N.E. 837, 73 Ind. App. 521, 1920 Ind. App. LEXIS 155

CourtIndiana Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 24, 1920

DocketNo. 10,512

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 127 N.E. 837 (Indiana Power & Water Co. v. Miller) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Indiana Power & Water Co. v. Miller, 127 N.E. 837, 73 Ind. App. 521, 1920 Ind. App. LEXIS 155 (Ind. Ct. App. 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

McMahan, C. J.

Appellee, while working in appellant’s coal mine, received an injury in his left eye; following this injury he was not able to work for two or three weeks; he had the eye treated by eye specialists; his sight began to fail shortly after the injury, and in six or seven months thereafter he had completely lost the sight of both eyes.

The Industrial Board found that the injury complained of arose out of and in the course of appellee’s employment while working for appellant, and awarded 500 weeks’ compensation at thé rate of $13.20 per week, with the provision that the. total compensation should not exceed $5,000. Appellant appeals from this award, and contends that the award is not supported by the evidence and is contrary to law.

There is no contention over the finding that appellee was injured in the course of his employment by being struck in the eye with a piece of coal or something. Appellant contends that there is no evidence that this injury caused appellee to lose his eyesight, but that the undisputed evidence shows that the blindness was caused by a constitutional disease. In support of this contention appellant insists that, in' a case of this kind, the fact that the blindness was the result of the injury must be proved by the testimony of physicians; and that such fact cannot be proved by nonexpert witnesses. It is not necessary for us to pass upon this contention, as Dr. [523]*523Knapp in answering the first question asked by appellant on cross-examination testified that the condition of appellee’s eyes, the atrophy of the optic nerves in both eyes, might have resulted from the injury suffered by appellee in February, 1917. This statement, when taken with the other evidence, is sufficient to support the award.

We have carefully examined the evidence as set out in the briefs and as shown by the record, and find that there is ample evidence to support the award.

Appellee was not required to present such proof as would entirely exclude the possibility that his blindness was due to a constitutional disease. Bucyrus Co. v. Townsend (1917), 65 Ind. App. 687, 117 N. E. 656.

Award affirmed and increased five per cent.

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

McMahan, C. J.

Appellee, while working in appellant’s coal mine, received an injury in his left eye; following this injury he was not able to work for two or three weeks; he had the eye treated by eye specialists; his sight began to fail shortly after the injury, and in six or seven months thereafter he had completely lost the sight of both eyes.

The Industrial Board found that the injury complained of arose out of and in the course of appellee’s employment while working for appellant, and awarded 500 weeks’ compensation at thé rate of $13.20 per week, with the provision that the. total compensation should not exceed $5,000. Appellant appeals from this award, and contends that the award is not supported by the evidence and is contrary to law.

There is no contention over the finding that appellee was injured in the course of his employment by being struck in the eye with a piece of coal or something. Appellant contends that there is no evidence that this injury caused appellee to lose his eyesight, but that the undisputed evidence shows that the blindness was caused by a constitutional disease. In support of this contention appellant insists that, in' a case of this kind, the fact that the blindness was the result of the injury must be proved by the testimony of physicians; and that such fact cannot be proved by nonexpert witnesses. It is not necessary for us to pass upon this contention, as Dr. [523]*523Knapp in answering the first question asked by appellant on cross-examination testified that the condition of appellee’s eyes, the atrophy of the optic nerves in both eyes, might have resulted from the injury suffered by appellee in February, 1917. This statement, when taken with the other evidence, is sufficient to support the award.

We have carefully examined the evidence as set out in the briefs and as shown by the record, and find that there is ample evidence to support the award.

Appellee was not required to present such proof as would entirely exclude the possibility that his blindness was due to a constitutional disease. Bucyrus Co. v. Townsend (1917), 65 Ind. App. 687, 117 N. E. 656.

Award affirmed and increased five per cent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

127 N.E. 837, 73 Ind. App. 521, 1920 Ind. App. LEXIS 155, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/indiana-power-water-co-v-miller-indctapp-1920.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack