{ "id": 1730713, "name": "Olin Mathieson Chemical Co. v. White", "name_abbreviation": "Olin Mathieson Chemical Co. v. White", "decision_date": "1965-10-18", "docket_number": "5-3659", "first_page": "833", "last_page": "836", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "239 Ark. 833" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "394 S.W.2d 632" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "357 S.W. 2d 61", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "235 Ark. 314", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1684801 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/235/0314-01" ] }, { "cite": "350 S. W. 313", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "234 Ark. 1", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1688384 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/234/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "233 Ark. 398", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1691590 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/233/0398-01" ] }, { "cite": "231 Ark. 158", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1697030 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/231/0158-01" ] }, { "cite": "231 Ark. 10", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1697141 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/231/0010-01" ] }, { "cite": "227 Ark. 147", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1705700 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/227/0147-01" ] }, { "cite": "229 Ark. 672", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1702700 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/229/0672-01" ] }, { "cite": "220 Ark. 333", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1660051 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/220/0333-01" ] }, { "cite": "220 Ark. 325", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1660136 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/220/0325-01" ] }, { "cite": "208 Ark. 866", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1478502 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/208/0866-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 388, "char_count": 4749, "ocr_confidence": 0.535, "pagerank": { "raw": 7.112724912833455e-08, "percentile": 0.42714343577559927 }, "sha256": "94a9e2d18feee1c0d51bd18de1dba50350269982ec51686dfd90851765dc7fbe", "simhash": "1:231d4ea98d0b519b", "word_count": 813 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:55:14.179779+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Olin Mathieson Chemical Co. v. White." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Paul Ward, Associate Justice.\nThis is a Workmen\u2019s Compensation case. The only question presented to us by this appeal is whether the record contains substantial evidence to support the Commission\u2019s finding that there was a causal connection between John Lee White\u2019s work and his death.\nJohn Lee White was an employee of Olin Mathieson Chemical Company (appellant herein) for some seventeen years before his death on October 30, 1962. During practically all (if not all) of his employment he checked lumber when it was stored or packed in railroad cars for shipping. It is undisputed that such employment called for no great physical effort.\nAfter Mr. White\u2019s death his widow, Irma White (appellee herein), filed a claim for compensation which was disallowed by the Referee. On appeal to the full Commission the claim was allowed, and on appeal to the circuit court the Commission was upheld. On appeal by appellant to this Court a reversal is sought solely on the ground mentioned at the outset of this opinion.\nIn our opinion the finding of the Commission is supported by substantial evidence. -\nOn Monday October 8, 1862 White complained about not feeling well. When he quit work that afternoon he told his wife about how he felt and she took him to a doctor. The doctor told White he thought the trouble was merely indigestion, but to come back that week-end for' an electrocardiogram. White went to work on Monday (October 16) but when he complained of being ill at noon he was sent to the hospital with a suspected heart condition, and fifteen days later he died.\nIt would serve no useful purpose to discuss in detail the conflicting medical testimony relative to the cause of White\u2019s death. There is, however, the testimony of Dr. W. M. Hamilton (not available to the referee at the time of his decision) which, we think, supports the find-, ing of the Commission in favor of appellee.\nIn substance Dr. Hamilton testified: In my opinion White\u2019s heart attack began on October 8, 1962, and the work he did after that aggravated his condition, lessened his chance to survive, and hastened his death; 85% to 90% of men in White\u2019s age group survive a coronary occlusion, and it is probable that he would be alive today if he had not continued to work.\nThe conclusion indicated above is supported by and in harmony with numerous decisions of this Court: See: \"Harding Glass Company v. Albertson, 208 Ark. 866, 187 S. W. 2d 961; Baker v. Slaughter, 220 Ark. 325, 248 S. W. 2d 106; Farmer v. L. H. Knight Co., 220 Ark. 333, 248 S. W. 2d 111; E. P. Bettendorf and Company v. Kelly, 229 Ark. 672, 317 S. W. 2d 708; Bryant Stave & Heading Co. v. White 227 Ark. 147, 296 S. W. 2d 436;\nSafeway Stores, Inc. v. Harrison, 231 Ark. 10, 328 S. W. 2d 131; Reynolds Metal Co. x. Robbins, 231 Ark. 158, 328 S. W. 2d 489; Harper v. Henry J. Kaiser Construction Co., 233 Ark. 398, 344 S. W. 2d 856; McGeorge Construction Co. v. Taylor, 234 Ark. 1, 350 S. W. 313; Arkansas Best Freight System, Inc. v. Shinn, 235 Ark. 314, 357 S.W. 2d 61.\u201d\nIn the Harding Glass case, supra, this Court, after reviewing cases from other jurisdictions, said:\n\" \u2018The rule supported by the weight of authority, however, is employee\u2019s engaging in the employment, whether due to unusual or extraordinary condition or not, is to be deemed an accidental injury within the meaning of the statute. \u2019 \u2019 \u2019\nIn the White case, supra, it was stated that \". . . an injury is accidental when either the cause or result is unexpected or accidental, although the work being- done is usual or ordinary. \u2019 \u2019\nIn the Robbins case, supra, this Court, after stating that cases of this nature shall be broadly and liberally construed, and doubtful cases shall be resolved in favor of the claimant, made the following significant' statement:\n\"But there is even a stronger rule, namely, our oft repeated holding that if there is any substantial evidence to support the findings of the Commission, we will not disturb such findings. This is the strongest rule in compensation cases, and the one carrying the greatest weight. \u2019 \u2019\nAppellant suggests that heretofore we have been too liberal (in favor of the claimant) in construing the word \u201caccident\u201d in cases of this nature, and urgently insists that hereafter we should modify our opinions accordingly. We have also received similar suggestions in the past by other litigants. We mention this matter at this time to take occasion to make clear that we have carefully considered these suggestions and feel no such change would be justified.\nAffirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Paul Ward, Associate Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "Brotan, Compton & Pretaett, for appellant.", "Spencer & Spencer, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Olin Mathieson Chemical Co. v. White.\n5-3659\n394 S. W. 2d 632\nOpinion delivered October 18, 1965.\n[Rehearing denied November 8, 1965.]\nBrotan, Compton & Pretaett, for appellant.\nSpencer & Spencer, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0833-01", "first_page_order": 861, "last_page_order": 864 }