Bramble v. Shields

AdeiNS, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. William Shields was injured on June 2J, 1922, while working in a trench. It caved in and he was covered by earth and rocks up to his neck or shoulders and in extricating him it was found, according to the report and testimony of the attending physician, that both bones of his right leg were fractured, that there were lacerations upon the entire body, including laceration at left groin about seven inches long, and a facture of the fifth lumbar vertabrae. He was at once-taken to a hospital, where he remained about four weeks,, when he was removed to his -home, where his leg was in a east for four weeks longer.

He worried about his condition, imagined his -spine was decaying, and that he would never get well. According to Dr. Jamison, his attending physician, his mind began to get bad six weeks after he returned home, or about the middle of -September, and it continued to get worse all the time, until he was- taken to Mt. Hope on February 28th, 1923. He began to insist that his spinal cord was decaying about three or four weeks after he got home from the hospital.

Dr. Jamison thought some one might have told him about the case of a man who- had his back broken in an accident resulting in his death, and that this might have prayed on -Shields’ mind. But the doctor did not know as a matter of fact that Shields 'had ever heard' of it, as he never talked to the doctor about it. Shields never ⁵⁰¹ did any work after the accident, although be seemed to get well physically and the X-ray failed to disclose any injury to the back. The doctors consequently assumed that the-pains in the back of which he complained were delusions, and that his fear that his spinal cord was decaying was an obsession.

The accident was promptly reported to the Industrial Accident Commission, which found him temporarily totally incapacitated, and on July 6, 1922, ordered “that compensation at the rate of $8.00 per week, payable weekly, be paid to the said William Shields by John T. Bramble, employer, and Associated Employers’ Reciprocal, insurer, during the continuance of his disability subject to the Workmen’s Compensation Law, said compensation to begin as of the 1st day of July, 1922, and that final settlement receipt be- filed with the commission in due time.” On November 28th, 1922, Dr. John B. Brauner certified to Mr. William Bramble that he had examined Shields and did not find any results in his back from the injury he sustained from his accident; that “he is suffering from neurasthenia due to constantly thinking that he will not get well.” On Nov. 27th, 1922, Dr. Jamison made a similar report to Mr. John T. Bramble. On January 3rd, 1923, a final settlement receipt was filed with the commission signed by Shields and dated December 29th, 1922. On April 28th, 1923, a petition was filed in the case by Mrs. William S. Shields, “the dependent wife and next friend of William S. Shields,” alleging that the settlement receipt had been signed by Shields when he was mentally incapacitated at the instance of a representative of the insurer; also setting forth the fact of his confinement in Mt. Hope, and alleging that his mental condition was a direct result of his injury, and praying: 1.

That the case be reopened and a further hearing had. 2. That the alleged receipt be set aside. ⁵⁰² 3. That after a full bearing tbe commission make sucb award ás may seem proper and requisite. A bearing was granted on this petition and, after taking tbe testimony offered by the petitioner, tbe commission passed an order declaring tbe settlement receipt null and void, and directing a further bearing on tbe question of an award.

And at sucb further bearing it was ordered by tbe commission, on August 18th, 1923, “that payment of compensation ordered paid under order of tbe commission passed on July 6, 1922, cease as of December 22, 1922.” Whereupon a petition in tbe nature of an appeal was filed in tbe Circuit Court for Frederick County in tbe name of William Shields, 'by bis attorneys, appellant, against John T. Bramble and Associated Employers’ Reciprocal, Insurer, appellees. A motion to dismiss tbe appeal was filed on tbe ground that the appeal was taken by an insane person by attorneys. This motion was overruled and leave granted tbe claimant to amend tbe petition as requested by written application to tbe court. Thereupon an amended petition for appeal was filed in tbe name of William Shields and Mrs. William S. Shields, bis wife and next friend, appellants, against John T. Bramble1, Employer, and Associated Employers’ Reciprocal, Insurer, appellees.

Tbe case proceeded to* trial on three issues submitted to tbe jury at tbe request of the respective parties, viz.: 1. Whether tbe mental disease with which William Shields is afflicted is tbe natural result of tbe injuries received by said William Shields while in tbe employ of John T. Bramble on June 27, 1922. 2. Is William Shields temporarily totally disabled ? 3. Is William Shields permanently totally disabled?

Tbe answer of tbe jury was “yes” on tbe first and third issues, and “no” on tbe second. On • which verdict judgment was entered reversing tbe order of tbe commission of August 18th, 1923, and remand ⁵⁰³ ing the case to the commission “to the end that it pass an order or orders awarding thu claimant such sum per week as-is provided by law, during permanent total disability, but not to exceed in the aggregate the sum. of $5,000.” From that judgment this appeal was taken. There are four bills of exception, three to the rulings of the court on evidence and one to the ruling on the prayers, and on defendants’ special exception to claimants.’ first prayer. The Reporter is. requested to set out all the prayers and the special exception.

We discover no error in the ruling on the prayers and the special exception. ■Claimants’ first prayer as modified is unobjectionable if there was any ease to go to the jury. There is no force in the special exception that this prayer submits, a question of law to the jury. . Defendants’ first four prayers are demurrers to the evidence and were properly refused. There was evidence legally sufficient to support a finding in favor of claimant.

Dr. Flannery, chief resident physician at Mt. Hope, heard the evidence and from it testified as an expert that, in his opinion, the disease resulted from the accident. That was sufficient. to take the case to the jury, there being nothing obviously improbable or fanciful in the conclusion reached by the expert from the testimony. ' It is urged by appellants that Dr. Flannery testified that such a mental disease as that with which Shields was suffering could be .the result of a number of causes., including loss of money and grief; and that there was evidence that these two things existed in .Shields’ case, one from, the cutting off ox his. compensation allowance, and the other from the story he heard about the man dying from a broken bads; and it is argued, as. it does not dearly appear which was the cause, the jury should not be permitted to speculate about it. But Dr. Flannery distinctly stated that these two’ things could not have been the cause, in .the face of the history of the ease.

There is. no testimony that .Shields, actually heard of ⁵⁰⁴ the man dying' from a broken back, or, if he did, that it made any impression upon him. As to the cutting off of the insurance money, that did not occur, nor is there any evidence that it was mentioned to Shields, until seyeral months after his mind became affected. A uniform fallacy runs through all of defendants’ other rejected -prayers, resulting from a misconception of