{
  "id": 1633379,
  "name": "ARKANSAS FOUNDRY COMPANY and The Travelers Ins. Co. v. Katherine J. CODY Widow of Wm. R. Cody, deceased",
  "name_abbreviation": "Arkansas Foundry Co. v. Cody",
  "decision_date": "1971-09-27",
  "docket_number": "5-5623",
  "first_page": "57",
  "last_page": "62",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "251 Ark. 57"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "470 S.W.2d 812"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "235 Ark. 104",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1684811
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1962,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/235/0104-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "231 Ark. 158",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1697030
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1959,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/231/0158-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "248 Ark. 1096",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1597703
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1970,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/248/1096-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 618,
    "char_count": 9909,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.85,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.9315198532941848e-07,
      "percentile": 0.734285087663412
    },
    "sha256": "66670206d3d6271dd934ff26a2db14d80781b2109d2bbee8f6985b82df050271",
    "simhash": "1:ed307ca49de0a2da",
    "word_count": 1750
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:18:57.175988+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "ARKANSAS FOUNDRY COMPANY and The Travelers Ins. Co. v. Katherine J. CODY Widow of Wm. R. Cody, deceased"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Frank Holt, Justice.\nThe appellee, Katherine Cody, widow of William R. Cody, instituted this action for workmen\u2019s compensation dependency benefits. The Workmen\u2019s Compensation Commission found, with one member dissenting, that Mr. Cody\u2019s death on July 10, 1969 was a result of the work he performed on July 3, 1969 and, therefore, arose out of and in the course of his employment.\nFor reversal of the circuit court\u2019s affirmance of the Commission\u2019s findings, appellants argue that there is no substantial evidence to sustain the findings of the Commission.\nIn July 1969 William Cody, 56 years of age, a three-year employee of Arkansas Foundry Company, was on vacation from his duties as a truck driver. He interrupted his vacation on July 3 to return to work for that day. He suffered a heart attack and died July 10, 1969. Mr. Cody\u2019s daily log for July 3 reflects that he was on duty from 6:30 a.m. until 8:30 p.m. During this time he drove his truck to Carlisle, Arkansas arriving around 10 a.m. and unloaded, without the assistance of the customary use of skids, 30 to 35 bundles of shingles weighing approximately 75 pounds each. Cody worked alone for an estimated 20 minutes before Mr. Milligan, the manager of Peterson\u2019s Farms, and his son-in-law arrived to assist in unloading the balance of the 120 bundles of shingles. The son-in-law and Cody carried the balance a distance of 15 to 18 feet to the rear of the enclosed van where Milligan stacked them on the ground nearby. Milligan testified that: July 3 was \u201cone of the hottest days we had,\u201d the unloading was \u201cextremely hard\u201d work; after they completed the unloading, he and Cody \u201cwalked up in the shade and talked a little bit\u201d and that Cody was sweating while working and \u201cgot plenty hot\u201d but did not complain of having any pain. Milligan said that he and his son-in-law were so hot themselves that they did not pursue their claim that they were 2 or 3 bundles \u201cshort.\u201d\nAfter leaving Peterson\u2019s Farms, Cody drove to Brinkley and then to Memphis where his truck was reloaded and then he returned to Little Rock, arriving home around 9 o\u2019clock. Mrs. Cody testified that when he arrived home his clothes were sweaty, his face was flushed, and he complained that he \u201cgot as hot as a firecracker down there\u201d and that he just fell into his reclining chair and said that he was suffering pain in his left arm, under his shoulder blade and in his chest; that she rubbed him with Mentholatum Deep Heat; that he had refused to eat dinner; and that he had gone to bed on a rollaway bed in the dining room near the air conditioner. She further testified that it was unusual for him to complain when he came home from work and that this was the \u201cfirst time he had ever complained with his arms;\u201d that he did not want her to call the doctor and he did nothing but lay around the house on July 4, 5 and 6 which was unusual for Mr. Cody; that on Sunday, July 6, she took his temperature and it was 102 and that on the 7th she called Dr. Ross Bizzell, the family doctor, and was told to bring him in right away. Following this examination, Cody returned home and went back to bed. Thereafter, the only time he left the house was on July 9 when he drove his car to his employer\u2019s office, picked up his check and visited around there for about two hours. To some he appeared healthy and to others he appeared pale and made the complaint that he was not feeling well. One witness testified that Cody told him the doctor had \u201cgrounded\u201d him. One of the employer\u2019s managers testified that Cody, who ap-' peared pale, did not complain to him except to say: \u201cI won\u2019t be able to pull the mountain run tomorrow, the doctor said I\u2019ve got to rest,\u201d and said nothing further about returning to work. There was ho evidence that Cody made any complaint to anyone except his wife and stepdaughter on the day of the alleged injury. According to Mrs. Cody, her husband had not suffered from heart disease previously and he had not reported to her that Dr, Bizzell told him: \u201cI had a heart attack.\u201d She stated that he was concerned about the \u201csplit-up\u201d between his stepdaughter and her husband. Cody\u2019s stepdaughter corroborated her mother\u2019s testimony about Cody\u2019s appearance on July 3, his subsequent condition and activities. She said Cody told her he had a lot of trouble unloading at his stop in Carlisle and that his arms were hurting him. She then felt that he had suffered a heart attack because the pain in his arms and back were similar to that undergone by her father when he suffered a fatal heart attack. In reply to her insistence that he go to a doctor, Cody said there wasn\u2019t anything wrong with his \u201cticker.\u201d After seeing the doctor, Cody told her the doctor said that he had pleurisy.\nDr. Bizzell, with 23 years\u2019 experience as a physician, testified that Mr. Cody had been a patient of his for about four years and that prior to July 7, as far as he knew Cody was in excellent health; that Cody had visited his office on July 7th and had told him that: \u201c[H]e had been unloading some heavy shingles and he had had a pain in his chest and down his arms and that he had * * * had to sit down and rest and a couple of fellows had come along and if it hadn\u2019t been for them he couldn\u2019t have finished unloading his truck.\u201d Dr. Bizzell testified that bronchitis could cause chest pain, however, he told Cody that \u201che was sure that he had suffered an anginal attack and that he should go to the hospital for some EKG\u2019s and further tests.\u201d Other than hospitalization, Dr. Bizzell suggested that Cody \u201cgo home and rest.\u201d Dr. Bizzell treated Cody for acute bronchitis, prescribing Declomicin and Emperin No. 3 and bed rest. A copy of Cody\u2019s patient record card dated 7-7-69 was made an exhibit to Dr. Bizzell\u2019s testimony and, as interpreted by him, it reads: \u201cAcute Angina Blood pressure 124/70 pulse 90 temperature 102. Acute Bronchitis, forced to rest on job, given Declomicin.\u201d\nAs to causal connection between Cody\u2019s work and demise, Dr. Bizzell further testified:\n\u201cWell, I believe he was in an enclosed van and the temperature as I did recall \u2014 as I did write down that day, was 102 degrees outside. His information to me was that he was supposed to have helpers to unload these and that he had an attack, was forced down, was forced to sit down and rest until some help did arrive. I do believe at this time, due to the circumstances, that certainly I believe it aggravated the \u2014 or set off the triggering motion of an anginal or a coronary syndrome. I believe this. * * * Well, as I said before, I believe this \u2014 his work, the stress and strain of lifting precipitated the angina attack which further led to a complete occlusion or an extensive thrombosis, later to his death on the 10th.\u201d\nHe also remarked that bronchitis was often observed in people who had suffered a sudden spasm of the heart. The death certificate shows the cause of death as coronary occlusion, with which Dr. Bizzell agreed.\nThe appellants presented medical evidence which included the written opinions of four physicians to a hypothetical question. Each of the four opinions negated a finding that there was a causal relationship between the work done by Cody on the third and his death on the tenth. However, the hypothetical question did not indicate that Dr. Bizzell had told Cody that he had suffered an angina attack or that Cody had worked alone for a period of time before help arrived, or that Cody did not work after July 3 until his death July 10. Even so, based upon the hypothetical question as presented, Dr. Kahn, one of these four physicians, stated in his report: \u201cIt is my belief that this individual sustained a heart attack while at work performing the usual tasks which truck drivers might do.\u201d Dr. Cullen, appellants\u2019 witness, testified at the hearing that: \u201cIf he had chest pains of the kind described on the job and so forth I would say, yes, there was a causal connection.\u201d Dr. Cullen also stated he could not categorically say there would not be a causal relationship between Cody\u2019s work in the absence of evidence of pain prior to his return home for the reason that, contrary to the usual course, there is a possibility of one\u2019s experiencing a \u201csilent coronary,\u201d i. e., without a lot of symptoms at the start.\nIn reviewing the evidence in workmen\u2019s compensation cases we follow the substantial evidence rule. In Kearby v. Yarbrough Brothers Gin Co., 248 Ark. 1096, 455 S. W. 2d 912 (1970) we said:\n\u201c* * * This court has said on more than one occasion that the strongest rule in compensation cases, and the one carrying the greatest weight, is that if there is any substantial evidence to support the findings of the commission, we will not disturb those findings. Reynolds Metal Co. v. Robbins, 231 Ark. 158, 328 S. W. 2d 489 (1959).\u201d\nFurther, in Hall v. Pittman Construction Co., 235 Ark. 104, 357 S. W. 2d 263 (1962) we said:\n\u201cUnder the substantial evidence rule that prevails in a case of this kind the appellant shoulders a heavy burden in seeking a reversal of the commission\u2019s decision upon an issue of fact. In order to succeed the appellant must show that the proof is so nearly undisputed that fair-minded men could not reach the conclusion arrived at by the commission.\u201d\nUndoubtedly we would affirm if the Commission\u2019s finding had denied benefits to Mrs. Cody. However, since the Commission resolved the contentions in favor of her, we cannot say that there is no substantial evidence to support the Commission\u2019s award. It is the exclusive function of the Commission to determine the credibility of witnesses and to reconcile any inconsistencies in their testimony in resolving factual issues.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Frank Holt, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Terral, Rawlings, Matthews \u00bfr Purtle, for appellants.",
      "Stubblefield ir Matthews, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "ARKANSAS FOUNDRY COMPANY and The Travelers Ins. Co. v. Katherine J. CODY Widow of Wm. R. Cody, deceased\n5-5623\n470 S.W. 2d 812\nOpinion delivered September 27, 1971\nTerral, Rawlings, Matthews \u00bfr Purtle, for appellants.\nStubblefield ir Matthews, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0057-01",
  "first_page_order": 81,
  "last_page_order": 86
}