{
  "id": 1664681,
  "name": "BIBLER BROTHERS LUMBER COMPANY et al v. Jimmy CHISUM",
  "name_abbreviation": "Bibler Bros. Lumber Co. v. Chisum",
  "decision_date": "1979-05-21",
  "docket_number": "79-51",
  "first_page": "762",
  "last_page": "763",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "265 Ark. 762"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "580 S.W.2d 958"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 211,
    "char_count": 2420,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.885,
    "sha256": "6483b4994d4e751baec8172d8be8a48e58e5b7635d24a6862a1ced74a08cdb4e",
    "simhash": "1:d2c7622b54cd6ba9",
    "word_count": 396
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:31:48.026206+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Byrd, J., dissents."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "BIBLER BROTHERS LUMBER COMPANY et al v. Jimmy CHISUM"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "George Rose Smith, Justice.\nThis is a claim under the workers\u2019 compensation law for compensation incident to a surgical operation for a ruptured appendix suffered by the claimant. Upon conflicting medical testimony the Commission awarded compensation. In its opinion the Commission cited seven out-of-state cases in which it was found, upon conflicting medical testimony, that a blow or strain had caused or contributed to cause appendicitis. That point is not argued here. Instead, it is insisted that Dr. Luker\u2019s testimony in favor of the award is so speculative that it cannot be regarded as substantial evidence. We agree with the Commission\u2019s decision, which was affirmed by the circuit court.\nChisum was injured at work when a chain saw kicked back, with the handle striking him in the lower right side. Within a few minutes he became too ill to work and was taken to Dr. Luker\u2019s office. Dr. Luker thought that he had a contusion, possible strain, or abdominal tear to the musculature. Chisum was sent home to rest, but his condition worsened. Three days later Dr. Luker\u2019s associate diagnosed the ruptured appendix, and Dr. Bachman, a surgeon, performed the operation. It was Dr. Bachman\u2019s opinion that the claimant\u2019s work had nothing to do with his appendicitis.\nDr. Luker, a family practitioner, was of the opposite view. We do not consider his testimony as being too speculative to constitute substantial evidence. He recognized that appendicitis can be caused by a blow. He said that the time interval between the claimant\u2019s injury and the development of appendicitis was about right. He also said that the claimant\u2019s age made him favor the diagnosis of traumatic appendicitis, adding that \u201che\u2019s the kind that, all other things being constant, is you just wouldn\u2019t expect a diagnosis of appendicitis unless there was a trauma.\u201d He could not say with certainty that the blow caused the condition, but it was \u201cin the degree of probability.\u201d When Dr. Luker\u2019s testimony is considered as a whole, his conclusion that the blow from the chain saw probably caused the appendicitis appears to be a reasoned conclusion rather than mere speculation.\nAffirmed, with an allowance of a $250.00 attorney\u2019s fee to the appellee.\nByrd, J., dissents.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "George Rose Smith, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Niblock & Odom, for appellants.",
      "Dale W. Finley, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "BIBLER BROTHERS LUMBER COMPANY et al v. Jimmy CHISUM\n79-51\n580 S.W. 2d 958\nOpinion delivered May 21, 1979\n(In Banc)\nNiblock & Odom, for appellants.\nDale W. Finley, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0762-01",
  "first_page_order": 786,
  "last_page_order": 787
}