{ "id": 1485039, "name": "J. L. Williams & Sons, Inc., v. Moore", "name_abbreviation": "J. L. Williams & Sons, Inc. v. Moore", "decision_date": "1944-02-07", "docket_number": "4-7225", "first_page": "766", "last_page": "769", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "206 Ark. 766" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "177 S.W.2d 761" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "141 A. L. R. 798", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "A.L.R.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "122 Pac. 2d 570", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "19 Cal. 2d 622", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Cal. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2251827 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/cal-2d/19/0622-01" ] }, { "cite": "172 S. W. 2d 252", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.2d", "case_ids": [ 1488242 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/205/1093-01" ] }, { "cite": "203 Ark. 1093", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "115 S. W. 2d 835", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "195 Ark. 966", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8725663 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/195/0966-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 396, "char_count": 5259, "ocr_confidence": 0.491, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.580786398164489e-07, "percentile": 0.6803504760316142 }, "sha256": "049e5997e8fa7e5dcc780fe1efd4f6552272d697860f5974cf58d6d643054187", "simhash": "1:c6af622efa851856", "word_count": 853 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:20:24.664732+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "J. L. Williams & Sons, Inc., v. Moore." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Grieein Smith, -C. J.\nCircuit Court affirmed the award of Workmen\u2019s Compensation Commission based upon a finding that Biven A. Moore, while discharging his duties as a laborer in the employ of J. L. Williams & Sons, Inc., received injuries resulting in temporary total disability.\nAppellant argues a want of substantial evidence.\nMoore testified that while working at a mill July 2, 1941, he was struck in the back by a piece of lumber. Although suffering intensely, he did riot abandon his assignment except for a short interval during which he was incapacitated. A fellow worker testified the injury was sligld. Three days after the accident Moore called on Dr. Kelley. The physician thought the injury (in respect of which there was no external evidence) should be \u201ctaped,\u201d but Moore demurred, fearing physical \u00e1ctivity would be interfered with. He returned to Dr. Kelley July 8th and submitted to the'treatment first suggested, and continued at work. July 15th X-rays were taken, disclosing active tuberculosis. The patient was advised to go to bed. A week later Moore went to State Sanatorium at Booneville, where Dr. J. D. Riley made examinations. Upper and lower parts of the left lung were affected. In September a large cavity was observed in the lower half of the left lung. Moore gave a history of having been treated in 1933 for abscess of the right lung, an operation having been performed at El Paso, Texas.\nIn an affidavit received]by the Commission without objection Dr. Riley said: \u201cIn view of the presence of the cavity revealed on the picture taken September 7, (after removal of the fluid) it appears that this is an old process. . . . It is highly improbable that this could have taken place after July 2, 1941. From [Moore\u2019s history] and evidence revealed by the X-ray, I do not believe his present disability is due to the alleged injury. \u2019 \u2019\nDr. S. C. Fulmer, after familiarizing himself with the clinical record, expressed views similar to those of Dr. Riley.\nDr. Kelley\u2019s diagnosis was \u201cTraumatic pleurisy to left side following injury, resulting in pleural effusion, associated with tuberculosis.\u201d\nMoore had been working for appellant since 1938, \u2018 \u2018 ten hours a day, six days a week. \u2019 \u2019 In 1940 all employes were required to submit to a medical examination, presumably for the purpose of having their fitness determined. Copies of the doctors\u2019 findings were not given the employes, nor was appellee\u2019s report available when it was requested about the time claim for compensation was made. . '\nIf, as appellee contends, he was able to work ten hours a day, six days a week, and had not suffered inconvenience because of pleurisy or a tuberculous condition, it was not necessary that he should have been physically unimpaired when the injury now complained of occurred. It is sufficient if the accident, coupled with a non-disabling malady, produced disability which would not have occurred at that time but for the trauma.\nThis result may be reached without doing violence to appellant\u2019s expert testimony. Dr. Riley thought it highly improbable that the lung cavity and accrual of fluid could have developed subsequent to July 2, and he did not believe Moore\u2019s disability was due to the injury. This belief, it will be observed, is based upon what the witness thought was highly improbable \u2014 not impossible. Dr. Ivelley tliotigM the injury produced disability. Each doctor was expressing an opinion based upon experience and medical information. Here, as in Missouri Pacific Railroad Company v. Ward, 195 Ark. 966, 115 S. W. 2d 835, \u201cWe are confronted with possibilities and probabilities, conclusions and opinions, theories and counter theories, as applied to an inexact science.\u201d In Herron Lumber Company v. Neal, 203 Ark. 1093, 172 S. W. 2d 252, we\" quoted with approval from a California Supreme \u25a0Court opinion where it Was said that \u201cCircumstantial evidence is sufficient to support an award [of the Compensation Commission] and it may be based upon the reasonable inferences that arise from the reasonable probabilities flowing from the evidence; neither absolute certainty nor demonstration is required. \u2019 \u2019\nIt was the Commission\u2019s duty to determine whether Mo\u00f3re was truthful when he said he had been working-sixty hours a week before July 2d, and that disability and the injury occurred simultaneously, even though it be conceded that an inactive pleural condition and tuberculosis were' present. Again, it was the Commission\u2019s province to harmonize the inconsistencies between testimony given by Drs. Fulmer and Biley for appellant, and by Dr. Kelley for appellee. The tribunal concluded that disability could have resulted from the accident; and, since we cannot say this result is contrary to known laws of medical science against which proof may not prevail, Circuit Court did not err in entering- judgment.\nAffirmed.\nPleural effusion: \u201cAn effusion or collection of fluid which is in the pleural cavity or space.\u201d \u2014 Maloy\u2019s Medical Dictionary.\nPacific Employers Ins. Co. v. Industrial Accident Commission, 19 Cal. 2d 622, 122 Pac. 2d 570, 141 A. L. R. 798.", "type": "majority", "author": "Grieein Smith, -C. J." } ], "attorneys": [ "M. J. Harrison, for appellant.", "John L. Sullivan, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "J. L. Williams & Sons, Inc., v. Moore.\n4-7225\n177 S. W. 2d 761\nOpinion delivered February 7, 1944.\nM. J. Harrison, for appellant.\nJohn L. Sullivan, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0766-01", "first_page_order": 786, "last_page_order": 789 }