Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

WILLIAMS v. TEMPLE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL ET AL. (07/14/53)

July 14, 1953

WILLIAMS
v.
TEMPLE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL ET AL.



COUNSEL

W. Clark Hanna, Philadelphia, for appellee.

Before Rhodes, P. J., and Hirt, Reno, Dithrich, Ross, Gunther and Wright, JJ.

Author: Gunther

[ 174 Pa. Super. Page 48]

GUNTHER, Judge.

Claimant was injured in February, 1950, and filed a claim for workmen's compensation in December, 1950. After hearings the referee disallowed the claim. The

[ 174 Pa. Super. Page 49]

Board set aside several findings of fact, substituted its own and made an appropriate award to claimant. The court below affirmed the action of the Board and the employer and its carrier have appealed.

Claimant, a kitchen helper in defendant hospital, testified that two fellow employees were scuffling and one of them accidentally stepped on the big toe of his left foot. As a result, gangrene set in and it was necessary to amputate claimant's left leg above the knee. The medical testimony established that claimant had suffered from diabetes for many years; that diabetics are prone to gangrenous infections upon less shock than a normal person.

Appellants first contend that the testimony is indefinite, conflicting and mutually inconsistent as to when, where and the manner of the happening of the accident and accidental injury. The reasons advanced by appellants are captious and inconsequential. Appellants offered no evidence to contradict the testimony of claimant and his witnesses on the facts of the accident or on the causal connection between the accident and the ultimate injury. There was a variance in the testimony as to the exact date of the accident, in that three days of a consecutive four day period were mentioned. The lapse of time between the injury and the hearing (approximately sixteen months) could easily account for a mistake of memory. No reason is advanced by appellants as to the importance of such a minor error. Equally inconsequential is the fact that claimant alleged the injury to have occurred in the kitchen, while his witness referred to the locker room. The significance of this variance is not apparent. Suffice it to say both are on the employer's premises. Further, the very nature of the accident, in which claimant's toe was accidentally stepped on by one of two men engaged in a scuffle, would preclude a detailed description of the precise events,

[ 174 Pa. Super. Page 50]

    such as appellants now insist is necessary to sustain the findings.

Appellants next contend that there is no finding of fact and no competent medical testimony as to what injury was sustained. The Board's findings of fact were: '2. The claimant was injured on February 23, 1950, while cleaning in the defendant's kitchen when two co-employes who were engaged in a friendly scuffle, came close to him and one of them stepped on the great toe of the claimant's left foot * * *.' 4. The claimant suffered from diabetes on and prior to February 23, 1950, and the injury sustained by the claimant aggravated his pre-existing condition causing gangrene to set in. 5. The claimant's left leg was amputated above the knee, by reason of the accidental injury he sustained on February 23, 1950.' These findings are certainly explicit enough to support an award. Claimant's medical testimony clearly establishes the history of diabetes. Based on the assumption that the injury related by claimant did occur, the doctor who attended the amputation gave as his conclusion that the gangrene and subsequent necessary amputation resulted from trauma. This meets the evidentiary requirements needed to establish a causal connection between the injury and the disability, since the happening of the accident was proven by claimant's own testimony. Darmopray v. Budd Manufacturing Co., 169 Pa. Super. 200, 82 A.2d 341; Vorbnoff v. Mesta Machine Co., 286 Pa. 199, 133 A. 256. Further, claimant's chiropodist testified that he examined the toe the day of the accident ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.