{
  "id": 1614211,
  "name": "H. C. Price Construction Company v. Southern",
  "name_abbreviation": "H. C. Price Construction Co. v. Southern",
  "decision_date": "1949-11-21",
  "docket_number": "4-8985",
  "first_page": "113",
  "last_page": "116",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "216 Ark. 113"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "224 S.W.2d 358"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "205 Ark. 604",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1488245
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/205/0604-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 377,
    "char_count": 4557,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.506,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.496799833906401e-07,
      "percentile": 0.9461179010822639
    },
    "sha256": "7dc38ec5373c88fbd0b189c924c83fab2693830e14dc9bf5bd7cfa010a25d8da",
    "simhash": "1:b83e0a52ae1826c9",
    "word_count": 776
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:41:58.287119+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "H. C. Price Construction Company v. Southern."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "George Rose Smith, J.\nThis claim under the Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act arises from the appellee\u2019s partial blindness. It is conceded that he has only thirty per cent vision in his right eye and mere light perception in the left. The Commission denied the claim, in the belief that the appellee\u2019s condition did not arise out of and in tlie course of his employment. Ark. Stats. (1947), \u00a7 81-1305. The Circuit Court reversed the action of the Commission. For us the only inquiry is whether there was substantial evidence to support the Commission\u2019s rejection of the claim.\nThe appellee, a man of sixty, had been employed at intervals by the appellant for about fifteen years. On the evening of July 26, 1947, his eyes began to pain him; \u201cit felt like two balls of sand in there.\u201d He remembered that at about ten o \u2019clock that morning, during his work in the laying of a pipeline, he had been exposed to a bright flash from an electric welding torch. In the past he had suffered occasional eye trouble from similar incidents, but had been able to obtain relief by home remedies. In this instance he tried these without success, and on July 29 he was taken to Dr. Eaymond Cook, an ophthalmologist.\nDr. Cook testified that the appellee\u2019s right eye was red and painful. Its internal pressure was found to be sixty-one millimeters, as compared to normal pressure of twenty-five millimeters. The left eye was normal in both inner tension and outward appearance. Examination disclosed adhesions in the interior of each eye, binding the pupils to the lenses. Dr. Cook prescribed an ointment and hot packs, which relieved the pain to some extent. On August 5 the patient returned to have the prescription refilled and was told by Dr. Cook, after another examination, that his condition would probably require an operation.\nDuring the next few days the appellee\u2019s vision almost failed. On August 8 he telephoned his family in Enid, Oklahoma, to come and get him, that he was blind. An operation was performed in Enid on Angnst 11, to save the eyesight that still remained. Since then the appellee has consulted other physicians, bnt it is indicated that his condition will probably grow worse.\nHeightened outward pressure in the eyeball is known as glaucoma. The disputed question in this case is whether the appellee\u2019s glaucoma was caused or aggravated by the flash of light on July 26. Dr. Cook testified that in his opinion it was not. He attributes the appellee\u2019s disability to the adhesions within his eyes. In his judgment, which in this respect is not disputed, these adhesions could not have formed in three days; their existence goes back for at least six months and perhaps for twenty years. Such adhesions may eventually obstruct the circulation of the fluid in the eye. When that happens the internal pressure rises very rapidly, with attendant pain to the patient. Dr. Cook\u2019s disregard of the welding flash as a contributing factor to the glaucoma is based on two considerations: First, he found no evidence of electric conjunctivitis \u2014 the normal consequence of a flash burn. Second, glaucoma was originally present only in the right eye, whereas in nearly every case the eyes are affected alike by an electric flash, because a person looks at an object with both eyes. The other medical witnesses agree that such injuries are not usually confined to one eye alone.\nDr. Cook\u2019s conclusion is not shared by other physicians who testified. In their view the welder\u2019s light either did contribute or may have contributed to the appellee\u2019s disability. The testimony cannot be reconciled. It is not, however, the function of the courts to weigh the evidence in compensation cases. J. L. Williams & Sons, Inc., v. Smith, 205 Ark. 604, 170 S. W. 2d 82. The legislature has entrusted to the Commission the power to speak the final word in controversies of fact, just as a jury must assume that responsibility in suits at common law. It is immaterial that we might reach a different conclusion if we were permitted to try the case anew. That authority has not been given to us. The evidence in support of the Commission\u2019s action is of the character required by the statute, and we have no choice except to sustain the denial of the claim.\nThe judgment is reversed and the cause remanded with instructions to affirm the action of the Commission.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "George Rose Smith, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Wright, Harrison, Lindsey & Upton, for appellant.",
      "Hugh Conway, Josh W. McHughes and J. H. Carmichael, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "H. C. Price Construction Company v. Southern.\n4-8985\n224 S. W. 2d 358\nOpinion delivered November 21, 1949.\nWright, Harrison, Lindsey & Upton, for appellant.\nHugh Conway, Josh W. McHughes and J. H. Carmichael, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0113-01",
  "first_page_order": 137,
  "last_page_order": 140
}