{
  "id": 1675937,
  "name": "UNION LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY v. Ernest Leroy WASSON et ux",
  "name_abbreviation": "Union Life Insurance v. Wasson",
  "decision_date": "1978-02-27",
  "docket_number": "77-231",
  "first_page": "878",
  "last_page": "881",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "262 Ark. 878"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "562 S.W.2d 70"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "257 Ark. 629",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8722476
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/257/0629-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 312,
    "char_count": 4649,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.894,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.06336392585050325
    },
    "sha256": "46ba4a0f27f532bfb518b8953f7fde8656af1cf2dfaedd7ce897d628bc2a42a8",
    "simhash": "1:bb85750aeab581da",
    "word_count": 750
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:27:42.068781+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "We agree: Harris, C.J., and Fogleman and Byrd, JJ."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "UNION LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY v. Ernest Leroy WASSON et ux"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Frank Holt, Justice.\nAppellees initiated this action to recover medical and hospitalization expenses as provided in a group insurance policy issued by appellant. Appellant had denied coverage on the basis that on December 15, 1974, the effective date of the policy, appellee Mrs. Wasson was disabled and had never completely recovered from these disabilities. The jury specifically found that Mrs. Wasson was not disabled on December 15, 1974, and awarded her the claimed benefits of $6,098.71. Appellant asserts that the trial court erred in overruling its motion for a directed verdict and also there was no substantial evidence to support the jury\u2019s finding.\n\u201cA directed verdict for the defendant is proper only when there is no substantial evidence from which the jurors as reasonable men could possibly find the issues for the plaintiff.\u201d Ark. Kraft Corp. v. Johnson, Adm\u2019r., 257 Ark. 629, 519 S.W. 2d 74 (1975). Further, in determining if substantial evidence exists, \u201cit is well established that upon appeal we consider only the evidence of the appellee or that portion of all the evidence which is most favorable to him.\u201d\nHere the insurance certificate reads: \u201cThe coverage of any dependent who is disabled by injury or disease .... will not be made effective until the dependent completely recovers from such disability.\u201d The policy defines \u201cdisability\u201d or \u201cdisabled\u201d thusly:\n(b) in the case of a dependent, that he is prevented from engaging in all the normal activities of a person of like age and sex and in good health solely as a result of injury or sickness.\nAppellant argues that, on the effective date of the policy, December 15, 1974, Mrs. Wasson was disabled from a broken leg and hysterectomy and had not completely recovered as of January 1, 1975, the beginning date of Mrs. Wasson\u2019s claims. Mrs. Wasson produced evidence to the contrary. Also, her claimed disabilities, from and after January 1, 1975, were unrelated to her previous disabilities.\nMr. Wasson testified that his wife worked in his place of business until she broke her leg about October 5, 1974. After that \u201cshe worked some with the cast on\u201d and finally quit when she had a hysterectomy about November 6, 1974, with a recovery period of six weeks. During this recovery period, however, she did some work such as \u201ctaking orders or taking cash.\u201d No claim for any medical or hospital expense is being made relating to the hysterectomy or broken leg. According to him, his wife had fully recovered from her broken leg and hysterectomy on the effective date of the policy, December 15, 1974. Mrs. Wasson\u2019s testimony corroborated that of her husband; namely, she had fully recovered from both the broken leg and hysterectomy and suffered no residual effects as of January 1, 1975. Her present claims began when she visited her doctor \u201c[a]bout the middle .... the last part of December\u201d for bronchitis and was admitted to the hospital January 1, 1975, for bronchitis secondary to influenza. She was hospitalized twice for other ailments after the January 1, 1975, hospitalization. Neither of her three hospitalization records, which were in evidence, indicated her sickness was related to her previous leg injury or hysterectomy. The evidence was amply substantial to support the jury\u2019s finding of coverage under the policy.\nAppellant next contends the court erred in refusing to admit into evidence a copy of a decision on appellee\u2019s application for Social Security benefits. The Social Security Administration, after a hearing on appellee\u2019s March 18, 1975 claim for disability benefits, held appellee was entitled to benefits for a period of disability commencing October 3, 1974. Appellant argues that this decision, although not conclusive, is persuasive evidence that Mrs. Wasson had not recovered from her leg injury and hysterectomy. The court held that Mrs. Wasson\u2019s application for Social Security was admissible for the jury to consider with respect to any statements therein against her interests. However, the court ruled that the decision, proffered in evidence, was inadmissible. The court was correct. Suffice it to say that the requirements as to disability under the Social Security Act and those under the terms of the contract of insurance here are dissimilar.\nAppellees\u2019 attorney is awarded $1,500 for his services in this appeal.\nAffirmed.\nWe agree: Harris, C.J., and Fogleman and Byrd, JJ.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Frank Holt, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Moses, McClellan, Owen & McDermott, by: William L. Owen, for appellant.",
      "Bradley & Coleman, by: Douglas Bradley,.for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "UNION LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY v. Ernest Leroy WASSON et ux\n77-231\n562 S.W. 2d 70\nOpinion delivered February 27, 1978\n(Division II)\nMoses, McClellan, Owen & McDermott, by: William L. Owen, for appellant.\nBradley & Coleman, by: Douglas Bradley,.for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0878-01",
  "first_page_order": 916,
  "last_page_order": 919
}