Wilson & Co. v. State Industrial Commission

1936 OK 450, 58 P.2d 905, 177 Okla. 234, 1936 Okla. LEXIS 637
CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma
DecidedJune 16, 1936
DocketNo. 26619.
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 1936 OK 450 (Wilson & Co. v. State Industrial Commission) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Wilson & Co. v. State Industrial Commission, 1936 OK 450, 58 P.2d 905, 177 Okla. 234, 1936 Okla. LEXIS 637 (Okla. 1936).

Opinion

CORN, J.

This is an original proceeding in this court to review an order of the State Industrial Commission in favor of the respondent J. D. Cox, made and entered on the 13th day of August, 1935. The parties will he referred to hereinafter as petitioner and claimant.

This action was commenced on June 22, 1935, when J. D. Cox filed his first notice of injury and claim for compensation setting forth that on the afternoon of April 12, 1935, he sustained an accident by getting pepper in his eyes, throat, and lungs. Claimant’s attorney then filed a motion for hearing, asking that the case be set down for trial to determine liability and extent of disability. To this motion claimant’s employer, Wilson & Company, filed an answer admitting the employment of the claimant on the 12th day of April, 1935, but specifically denied that the claimant sustained an accidental personal injury arising, out of and during the course of his regular employment, and further alleged that any injury or disability. is entirely due to conditions disassociated with claimant’s employment. The cause was set for hearing and testimony was taken on the 12th day of August, 1935, before Commissioner T. B. Luns-ford.

Claimant testified in substance that on April 12, 1935, he was employed by Wilson & Company, and his duties recxuired him to handle hams, taking them off a rack and laying them on a table for inspection; that while handling one of the hams which was covered with black pepper he sneezed, drawing the pepper into his throat and lungs; that he immediately became choked and had difficulty breathing for several minutes and that his foreman took him to the doctor and then to the Oklahoma General Hospital, where lie remained three or four days and received medical attention; that since said accident he has felt weak and nervous and his lungs and throat have pained him; that he had never had. an .accident before to his lungs; that he drew 42 cents an hour and worked anywhere from six to eight hours a day and averaged from 32 to 46 hours a week; that he cannot do the work that he was doing at the time he received his accident.

Under cross-examination claimant testified that he had been doing the same kind of work off and on for seven or eight years, but that this was the first time he had ever sneezed while handling the hams covered with black pepper; that just before the sneeze the pepper burned his nose, but that this was the first time that this had ever happened; that he was about six inches away from the ham when he sneezed and the pepper puffed up in his face; that he has used and been around black pepper all his life, but he had never had any trouble before; that Wilson & Company had never discharged him, but that he just did not feel like going back to work; „that although it had been quite a while since the doctor treated him, he had never been discharged as being unable to return to work.

Dr. W. B. Duller testified for and in behalf of the claimant, and stated in substance that Mr. Cox, the claimant, first came to him on May 5, 1935, and that he found upon examination that claimant was suffering with acute laryngitis and his bronchial tubes were affected; that claimant told him that he had been. working for Wilson & Company, and while handling a ham which was covered with black pepper he sneezed and got quite a bit of pepper in his throat and nose and was taken to the Oklahoma General Hospital; that black pepper is very harmful to the mucus membrane of the nose and throat and may also affect the bronchial tubes and it tends to cause laryngitis; that at the time he examined him claimant was unable to carry on the work he had been doing; that he commenced treating claimant and was treating him at the time of the hearing; that at the time gf the hearing and since the date witness had been treating claimant said claimant has been temporarily totally disabled.

Under cross-examination the doctor testified that he had never treated anybody from the packing plants who had been affected with black pepper^ but that he had treated people who had laryngitis from black pepper; that he treated a case of bronchitis due to black pepper at the University Hospital in 1921 or 1922, but could not remember the name of the patient; that claimant told him that he had been injured in April. 1935; that he painted claimant’s throat with tincture of methylate and gave him a spray for his nose and throat and also gave him a prescription for a gargle; that he had seen claimant at his office about twice a week since. the 5th of May; that he had informed claimant that he was *236 temporarily totally disabled and it would not be good for liim to go back to work on account of bis condition; that claimant bas a wheeze in bis lungs; that claimant bas low blood pressure, but the low blood pressure is not due to the breathing of the black pepper, but is due to claimant’s general condition; that assuming that claimant is a man of 70 years of age and bad been working for Wilson & Company for a period of approximately 15 years and bad low blood pressure but was working there, then breathed an excessive amount of pepper and immediately developed laryngitis and bronchitis, the breathing of the pepper was the cause of his inability to work.

Dr. J. P. McGee, testifying in behalf of the petitioner, stated that he is an eye, ear, and nose and throat specialist; that he examined claimant on July 29, 1935, at which time he gave a history that on April 12, 1935, while handling hams rolled in black pepper, he got some pepper in his face, eyes and lungs; that examination of the eyes showed a mild chronic catarrhal conjunctivitis ; that the cornea, lenses, media, and fundus were clear in each eye and he had a high degree of hyperopia, which is farsightedness ; that the loss of vision which he found was attributable to the high degree of hyperopia rather than to the accident; examination of the throat showed infected tonsils, the pharynx was reddened and mucus membrane thickened, which indicated a chronic laryngitis; that it is possible that the condition might have been the result of some irritation that claimant could have had from the outside, but in his opinion, an irritation that happened four months ago without any recurrence should have been gone, and for that reason witness felt that it was the result of infection in the tonsils; that it was possible that the irritation could have continued there, but ordinarily ho would not expect it to; that he could find no injury to the eyes as a result of irritation from pepper; that it is possible that breathing pepper could cause bronchitis, but that he felt that with the length of time that had elapsed and without further exposure the condition was not the result of the accident; that he could find no irritation of the nose; that he doubts that the pepper claimant breathed in April had anything to do with the condition at the time he examined him.

Under cross-examination the doctor testified that he knew nothing of the claimant’s general physical condition; that if claimant does not over-exert himself or become fatigued, the condition will clear up quicker; that pharyngitis is a condition similar to laryngitis, except that it is higher up in the throat; that in a private patient he would be of the opinion that the tonsils were the cause of the condition, but he would not say that the pepper could be definitely ruled out; that in a man as old as claimant one would perhaps expect the condition to remain there, even under treatment, longer than in a ybung man.

Dr. Neil W.

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

Related

Adams v. Reed Roller Bit Company
1959 OK 21 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1959)
Oklahoma Steel Castings Co. v. Cates
1945 OK 215 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1945)
Andrews Mining & Milling Co. v. Atkinson
1943 OK 110 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1943)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1936 OK 450, 58 P.2d 905, 177 Okla. 234, 1936 Okla. LEXIS 637, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilson-co-v-state-industrial-commission-okla-1936.