{
  "id": 1597734,
  "name": "LINCOLN CONSTRUCTION CO. et al v. Robert McFALLS",
  "name_abbreviation": "Lincoln Construction Co. v. McFalls",
  "decision_date": "1970-03-02",
  "docket_number": "5-5118",
  "first_page": "151",
  "last_page": "153",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "248 Ark. 151"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "450 S.W.2d 557"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "245 Ark. 749",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1606748
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/245/0749-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 225,
    "char_count": 2557,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.782,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.05982491643335191
    },
    "sha256": "8896c79de77f442157e2983a9b6f3127e4920e19f04c9081ad6193695b59ccf6",
    "simhash": "1:8373818570b0f25a",
    "word_count": 433
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:47:57.001151+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Harris, C. J., not participating."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "LINCOLN CONSTRUCTION CO. et al v. Robert McFALLS"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "George Rose Smith, Justice.\nThis is a workmen\u2019s compensation case in which the claimant asserts that he sustained a back injury while working for the appellant on December 18, 1964. Both the referee and the commission denied the claim upon the ground that the proof did not establish the occurrence of an accidental injury in the course of the claimant\u2019s employment. This appeal is from a judgment of the circuit court reversing the commission\u2019s decision.\nWe find the testimony to be in such conflict that a decision either way by the commission -would be supported by substantial evidence. At the time of the asserted injury the claimant was one of a crew of carpenters engaged in roofing a small church at Gould. McFalls testified that he hurt his back while he was pulling up a two-by-six timber, sixteen to twenty feet long, which was being handed up by another workman below. Several of the claimant\u2019s coworkers testified that they heard him say that he had hurt his back, but there is hardly any proof that they observed any indication of an injury other than hearing McFall\u2019s statement.\nOther evidence leaves the occurrence open to doubt. McFalls continued to work that afternoon and lost hardly any time from work during the following two months. He did not consult his doctor about the asserted injury until about ten days later. That physician had treated McFalls for pain in his back in 1957, 1958, 1961, and 1963, preceding the alleged injury in 1964. The doctor, with respect to the claimant\u2019s visit some ten days after the accident, stated that he had no recollection of McFall\u2019s having mentioned any cause for his condition, nor had the doctor made a notation of such a statement.\nMcFalls apparently waited for some time before reporting the asserted injury to his employer. He testified that he at once told his foreman, who was his brother, about the accident, but the brother was not offered as a witness. McFalls also testified that he reported the injury to the employer\u2019s managing partner some two months later, but that witness stated that he knew nothing of the injury until the following June. With the substantial evidence in such conflict we have no choice except to sustain the commission\u2019s decision. Reynolds Mining Co. v. Raper, 245 Ark. 749, 434 S. W. 2d 304 (1968).\nThe circuit court judgment is reversed.\nHarris, C. J., not participating.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "George Rose Smith, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Gannaway ir Darrow, for appellants.",
      "Reinberger, Eilbott \u00bfr Staten, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "LINCOLN CONSTRUCTION CO. et al v. Robert McFALLS\n5-5118\n450 S. W. 2d 557\nOpinion delivered March 2, 1970\nGannaway ir Darrow, for appellants.\nReinberger, Eilbott \u00bfr Staten, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0151-01",
  "first_page_order": 173,
  "last_page_order": 175
}