{ "id": 1691725, "name": "C. P. Chaney Sawmill, Inc. v. Robertson", "name_abbreviation": "C. P. Chaney Sawmill, Inc. v. Robertson", "decision_date": "1961-06-05", "docket_number": "5-2428", "first_page": "711", "last_page": "720", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "233 Ark. 711" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "231 Ark. 790", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1697095 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/231/0790-01" ] }, { "cite": "231 Ark. 158", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1697030 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/231/0158-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 784, "char_count": 17877, "ocr_confidence": 0.49, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.06389040442126162 }, "sha256": "c59562723dca404458e828d540a1a212112e152dfd9ef1f886c4b1655992c805", "simhash": "1:009e6ef5b0c9447a", "word_count": 3003 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:50:46.694457+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Johnson, J., dissents." ], "parties": [ "C. P. Chaney Sawmill, Inc. v. Robertson." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Carleton Harris, Chief Justice.\nThis is a Workmen\u2019s Compensation case, and is an appeal from the judgment of the Arkansas County Circuit Court, Southern District, wherein an order of the Commission, denying compensation benefits to appellee, was reversed. The Commission had upheld the findings of its Referee denying compensation.\nC. P. Robertson was a lumber scaler and inspector for the C. P. Chaney Sawmill, Inc., and prior to noon, on June 12, 1959, had been engaged in supervising the loading of lumber into a box car. Robertson did not personally load lumber, but inspected and graded same prior to the loading, by the use of a measuring stick with which he turned over the boards and measured them while they were stacked fifty inches high on tne loading platform. Robertson sometimes climbed onto the stacks while grading the lumber, and had pursued this type of work for several years. At noon on June 12th, Robertson went to a nearby restaurant and had lunch. Upon his return, while standing on the loading platform. giving instructions to the crew (just starting back to work), for the afternoon work program, he collapsed and died. This occurred at about five minutes after one. G. L. Moore, Lewis Ellis, and Earl Gammons, employees of the lumber company, testified at the hearing before the Referee, as well as C. P. Chaney, owner of the mill, and Doctors R. H. Whitehead, a physician of DeWitt, and Howard Dishongh, a physician of Little Rock. The testimony of Mrs. Robertson was introduced into the record by stipulation. Dr. E. Lloyd Wilbur of Little Rock testified before the full Commission, and a letter-report from Dr. Philip T. Cullen of Little Rock was offered in behalf of claimant. Witnesses Ellis and Chaney classified Robertson\u2019s duties as \u201clight work\u201d; Gammons stated that \u201cit is not as hard as a lot of work,\u201d while Moore gave no opinion one way or another relative to the degree of labor required. The witnesses who were present when Mr. Robertson died (Ellis, Moore, Gammons) agreed that he was performing no actual physical labor, but only talking, at the time he collapsed. The stipulation set forth that Mrs. Robertson, if present, would testify that Mr. Robertson had several times arrived home on a Friday night, and stated that his chest had been hurting during the week. \u201cOne Friday last spring he came home from DeWitt and was complaining of his chest hurting.\u201d Further:\n\u201cWhen he talked about his chest pains, I tried to get him to go see a doctor, to let me get him an appointment with a doctor, and he would say, \u2018No, some weekend, I will.\u2019 He frequently complained of one of his arms hurting, and I have seen him sit in the kitchen and rub it. He quit smoking about four years ago because of chest pains. He had smoked ever since he was a boy, but he thought it was his lungs, and quit smoking.\u201d\nThe stipulation further reveals that she stated he had complained of his chest hurting a few weeks before he died.\nOf course, as reflected by case after case, we simply determine if there is any substantial evidence to support the findings of the Commission. Reynolds Metals Co. v. Robbins, 231 Ark. 158, 328 S. W. 2d 489, Fort Smith Couch and Bedding Co. v. Jones, 231 Ark. 790, 332 S. W. 2d 817, Whitehead, general practitioner of DeWitt, was called to the scene after Robertson\u2019s death. The two men were good friends, and had breakfast together at a restaurant in DeWitt on the day of the fatal attack. Robertson complained to Whitehead that he felt bad, thought he was taking a cold, but did not have time to see a doctor. Whitehead stated that, in his opinion, though he could not be sure, Robertson died of a coronary insufficiency. The doctor was of the view that any physical effort, on the part of a person with a coronary insufficiency, would aggravate such condition. He had never treated Robertson. He was asked:\n\u201cQ. If Mr. Robertson was suffering from a heart condition, the fact that he went to work and worked until 1 o\u2019clock that day, would that aggravate the heart condition?\n\u201cA. It very likely would, yes, sir.\u201d\nFurther:\n\u201cQ. Now, do you arrive at the conclusion that going to work, if he had a heart condition, would aggravate the condition solely on the thought that one who had a heart condition should rest and not work?\n\u201cA. Well, we know that that is the best thing they can do, is rest.\n\u2018 \u2018 Q- Is that the reason you say his work might have aggravated it?\n\u201cA. Could have aggravated it, yes, sir.\u201d\nWhitehead had previously given a statement to an investigator wherein he stated that, \u201cIt is my opinion that his death did not occur as a result of his work or employment,\u201d but the Doctor testified, \u201cContinual work, of course, we know, aggravates a heart condition.\u201d\nDr. Philip Cullen, Little Rock cardiologist, in his letter, stated that it was his opinion that Robertson suffered from a chronic and progressive coronary sclerosis. Quoting from his letter:\n\u201cIncreased demands upon the heart muscle from work, eating, emotion, fatigue, warm environment, etc., could produce coronary failure, and myocardial infarction causing death. It is likely that even usual activity, on the day of his death, was a contributory cause of' death. \u2019 \u2019\nWhile Dr. Dishongh agreed with Dr. Whitehead that coronary insufficiency was the cause of Robertson\u2019s death, more specifically, a coronary occlusion, and further stated that the disease was evidently far advanced at that time, he was definitely of the opinion that Robertson\u2019s work did not aggravate his \u25a0 condition. He was asked:\n\u201cQ. Doctor, assuming that Mr. Robertson was standing on this loading platform at approximately 1 o\u2019clock in the afternoon, having just returned from his lunch, and outlining the work to be done by himself or other men, but doing no physical activity, and had before his lunch hour been engaged in his normal and usual work of scaling lumber which, according to the evidence, is described as light work, would those activities, in your opinion, aggravate any pre-existing condition of a heart nature which Mr. Robertson may have had?\n\u201cA. I don\u2019t think the work that he was doing would have aggravated it; no.\u201d\nLearned counsel for appellee point out that the doctor agreed that a man suffering from a coronary insufficiency should have rested, rather than gone to work, and that the usual work of one suffering from such a condition could constitute an exertion. Counsel, quoting from a publication by Meyer Texon, entitled \u201cHeart Disease and Industry,\u201d asked the question:\n\u201cQ. Well, lie says, and I quote again: \u2018That effort through, the mechanism of coronary insufficiency may precipitate myocardial infarction without occlusion, induce heart failure and in fact, cause sudden death.\u2019\n\u201cA. I guess it could precipitate it; yes, sir.\u2019\u2019\nDr. E. Lloyd Wilbur testified that he had read the report of Dr. Cullen, and the testimony of Dr. Whitehead, and he agreed that Robertson died from coronary artery disease. This witness was of the opinion that Robertson\u2019s activity did not contribute to his death on June 12th. He stated, that in arriving at his conclusion, he took into consideration the stipulation wherein Mrs. Robertson said that her husband had experienced chest pains. The doctor stated that he would assume these pains to be angina pectoris, but pointed out that she did not state whether such pains came after work, during work, at night, or just when. Wilbur was of the opinion that if an activity on the part of an individual produced his death, such death would occur almost immediately after his fatal activity. The doctor testified:\n\u201cAll the books that talk about angina pectoris mention that it can be precipitated, the pain and the attack, by exercise, by eating, by an emotional strain or by sudden exposure \u2014 -usually cold weather, but hot weather is a strain also; but I think cold weather is a greater strain than hot weather.\n\u201cMany of these patients do have their pain after eating, and to me, his lunch is the most important single precipitating factor.\u201d\nDr. Wilbur explained this statement by stating that the process of digestion requires more blood than when the stomach is at rest.\nAppellee directs attention to the fact that Dr. Dishongh was not familiar with the statement of Mrs. Robertson concerning the pains had by her husband, until taking the stand, and she emphasizes that, on cross-examination, in answer to questions propounded by counsel, the doctor agreed that getting out of bed, going to work, and working on the platform, wonld have aggravated his condition. These three answers of \u201cyes,\u201d and \u201cthat\u2019s right,\u201d constitute the only evidence in the record that Bobertson\u2019s work, on the day of his death, would have contributed to his demise, and were based upon the doctor\u2019s belief that any effort constitutes, to some extent, an exertion. However, Dr. Dishongh also stated that many people with coronary insufficiency, go about their normal duties, and that it would be necessary to discover the extent of the insufficiency in order to \u25a0determine whether one\u2019s ordinary duties aggravated the insufficiency to the point of causing an occlusion. He \u25a0further testified that after acquiring the information \u25a0contained in the stipulation, he was still of the opinion that Bobertson\u2019s work did not aggravate his condition.\nAppellee also complains that the finding of the Beferee and Commission that \u201cthere is no actual proof as to the cause of the death of deceased, nor is there any proof that deceased had any pre-existing arteriosclerotic \u25a0vascular disease\u201d is entirely erroneous and entirely unsupported by the proof. We see no need to discuss this point, for even though we should hold this finding erroneous, that, in itself, would not reverse the Commission, for appellee must go further and establish that Bobertson\u2019s work aggravated his pre-existing condition. We cannot agree that this was done. Dr. Whitehead made no positive statement that this was true, using the terms, \u201cvery likely\u201d and \u201ccould have,\u201d and, of course, the strength of even this testimony was diminished by the earlier statement given that the work had not contributed to Bobertson\u2019s death. Dr. Cullen\u2019s letter mentions several things that could produce myocardial infarction causing death, and then concludes, \u201cIt is likely, that even usual activity, on the day of his death, was a contributory cause of death.\u201d Aside from the fact that this last does not constitute a positive statement, it is also not clear whether he refers to all activities mentioned in the letter, or some particular activity. Be that as it may, it is very apparent that Dr. Wilbur considered the precipitating cause of the attack to be the meal that had just been partaken of. Wilbur disagreed with Cullen\u2019s statement that even Robertson\u2019s nsnal activity on the day of his death was a contributing* cause, stating:\n\"You get back to the problem that is insoluble, of course, why didn\u2019t it cause the death the day before, at which time he was having probably the same amount of activity that he had here. There\u2019s certainly something that must have occurred differently today than the day before; possibly more food; maybe his coronaries were in worse condition that day. But I don\u2019t think that it is right to attribute to his usual activity as much importance as this last sentence attributes because the very processes of living for all of us gradually resolve in a certain wearing down or breaking down of our bodies.\u201d\nPurther:\n\"I believe this; that if activity is going to cause a coronary failure resulting in death or even in myocardial infarction without death, that it will do so either while that activity is going on or within minutes after-wards, and by minutes, I mean not to exceed twenty minutes. So the only thing that I can relate his death at this particular time to is his meal.\u201d\nAs previously mentioned, no physician gave a \"flat out\u201d opinion that Robertson\u2019s work on June 12th aggravated his condition to the extent of causing the heart attack. To reverse the Commission\u2019s order would require the overruling of dozens of cases setting out the \u2022substantial evidence rule.\nWe hold there was substantial evidence to support the finding of the Commission that claimant had failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that Robertson died as a result of an accidental injury arising out of, and in the course of his employment; the judgment of the Circuit Court is accordingly reversed, and the cause remanded with directions to affirm the order rendered by the Commission denying the claim for compensation.\nJohnson, J., dissents.\nThe doctor explained that there are different stages of an insufficiency, and that in case of a sudden death, it means that a coronary artery has been occluded. As shown by the testimony, a coronary insufficiency is incompetent heart' action, caused by a restriction of blood supply to the myocardium, and consequent lack of oxygen- supply in that organ. It is characterized by anginal pains.", "type": "majority", "author": "Carleton Harris, Chief Justice." }, { "text": "Jim Johnson, Associate Justice,\ndissenting. I am unable to agree with the majority opinion because, as I see it, the record clearly fails to support the referee\u2019s findings. The referee\u2019s findings and conclusions were'adopted in toto by the Pull Commission.\nThe questioned portion of the findings is as follows:\n\u00a3\u2018 That there is no actual proof as to the cause of death of deceased, nor is there any proof that deceased had a pre-existing arteriosclerotic vascular disease.\u201d\nAs I view the record there is abundant proof as to the cause of the death of the deceased. All four doctors testified that the man-died from a heart condition. Dr. Whitehead, who saw him immediately after his death, testified that he died as a result of coronary insufficiency. Dr. Cullen expressed the opinion that\u00a3 \u00a3 the cause of death was probably myocardial infarction resulting from occlusion of a coronary artery. It appears that Mr. Robertson had coronary insufficiency for some weeks preceding his death.\u201d Dr. Dishongh testified that he agreed with Dr. Whitehead that the man died of a coronary insufficiency, and Dr. Wilbur testified: \u00a3 \u00a3I think he died from coronary artery disease. \u2019 \u2019\nCertainly from a review of the record set out above, the Commission\u2019s findings \u201cThat there is no actual proof as to the cause of the death of deceased\u201d cannot be said to be supported by substantial evidence.\nAs to the findings \u201cnor is there any proof that deceased had a pre-existing arteriosclerotic vascular disease,\u201d the record reflects the following: Dr. Whitehead testified that the man had a coronary insufficiency or a coronary occlusion secondary to atheriosclerosis.\nDr. Cullen expressed the opinion: \u201cMy opinion, based on a study of the transcript and a careful review of the doctor\u2019s testimony, is that Mr. Robertson suffered from a chronic and progressive coronary sclerosis. \u2019 \u2019\nDr. Dishongh testified that he would agree with Dr. Whitehead that the man had a coronary insufficiency and that he thought the coronary insufficiency had brought on the occlusion. He was asked this specific question:\n\u2018 \u2018 Q. Well then, an occlusion is a dead end of an arteriosclerotic condition?\n\u201cA. Yes, it is where the artery is occluded and no \u2019.blood gets in there. \u2019 \u2019\nIn reading from a reference work Dr. Dishongh was .\u2022asked the following question:\n\u201cQ. He further states that \u2018However, the heart which is already impaired by a coronary atherosclerosis \u25a0or a hypertrophy is more susceptible to coronary insufficiency. \u2019\n\u201cA. That is correct.\u201d\nDr. Dishongh further testified:\n\u201cAn occlusion means an occluded \u2014 an occlusion of the lumen of the arteries. It\u2019s like this: (drawing diagram) Let that be the inside of the arteries. You can have an occlusion where a blood clot forms there. You can have it where you\u2019ve got an arteriosclerotic condition that \u25a0comes in and makes it \u2014 this really closes up sometimes. Or you can have it \u2014 let that be the same artery \u2014 you can have it with a spasm \u2014 when that artery goes into a spasm that is occluded. As soon as that spasm recedes it can go back to \u2014 sometimes when you have this condition is when you have some pain in your chest. \u2019 \u2019\nDr. Dishongh testified as follows:\n\u201cI think if we\u2019d all known that this man had this coronary condition prior to his death it might have been a different story, but I mean this, when I got here was the first time that I was told that he might have had some pre-existing condition. \u2019 \u2019\nAnd he further testified:\n\u2018 \u2018 Q. And the fact that he died of a coronary condition is certainly evidence that the disease was far advanced at that time. Is that not right, Doctor?\n\u2018 \u2018 A. That is right. \u2019 \u2019\nIn addition to the Doctor\u2019s testimony, the widow of fhe deceased gave a statement which was by stipulation included in the record. She told about her husband\u2019s persistent chest pains, about his arms hurting, about his having a blackout and about his inability to sleep because of his chest.\nOn the basis of this additional medical testimony and Mr. Boberts\u00f3n\u2019s widow\u2019s testimony, I cannot agree that a finding of fact that there was no proof that the deceased had a pre-existing arteriosclerotic vascular disease is based on substantial evidence.\nProm what has been said it is clear to me that the record fails to support the Commission\u2019s findings. Even the substantial evidence rule, with all of its alleged strength, cannot suffice to-supply facts which from the record as I read it do not exist.\nTherefore, since, in my opinion, these questioned portions of the Commission\u2019s findings are the \u201cfacts\u201d upon which the Commission\u2019s conclusion (that deceased did not die as a result of an injury arising out of and in the course of his employment) hinges, I respectfully dissent.", "type": "dissent", "author": "Jim Johnson, Associate Justice," } ], "attorneys": [ "Riddick Riffel, for appellant.", "McMatli, Leatlierman, Woods S Youngdahl, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "C. P. Chaney Sawmill, Inc. v. Robertson.\n5-2428\nOpinion delivered June 5, 1961.\n[Rehearing denied September 11, 1961.]\nRiddick Riffel, for appellant.\nMcMatli, Leatlierman, Woods S Youngdahl, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0711-01", "first_page_order": 733, "last_page_order": 742 }