Jackson v. Bethlehem-Sparrows Point Shipyard, Inc.

Marbury, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court. On May 15,1944, appellant, employed by appellee, was loading a gun foundation on a freight car. The crane lifting the foundation swung it, and mashed appellant’s head between the side of the car and the foundation. He sustained a fracture at the base of the skull, lacerations of the right ear and right side of the face and lacerations over left mastoid process.

He was in a hospital eight days. One June 1, he filed his claim for compensation with the State Industrial Accident Commission. On June 6th an order was passed by the Commission finding appellant temporarily totally disabled and allowing him compensation from May 19, 1944, at the rate of twenty-three dollars a week during the continuance of his disability. On April 26, 1945, the Commission, on its own motion set the case for a hearing'to determine “the nature and extent of claimant’s disability.” A hearing was held on June 6, 1945 at which appellant was represented by the same counsel who appears for him in this Court.

At this hearing appellant testified that when he returned to work on August 15, 1944, he worked five or six hours, after which he got nervous and could not do his work. He lost another week during the latter part of August, 1944 for which he was paid compensation. Thereafter he went-back and at the time of the hearing was working on the “dinkey shifting car,” making the same wages of $57.68 a week. This work was not as hard as that he had been doing at the time of his injury.

The appellant claimed at the hearing before the Commission that he had constant headaches, that he did- not “hear good” out of his right ear, and that he “forgets”. He stated that when he came back to work his eyes bothered him, and he was sent to Dr. Clapp, who prescribed glasses, which he did not wear before the accident. Reports of Dr. Clapp were filed. The one of August ⁵⁸⁷ 14,1944, reported a fairly high, amount of mixed astigmatism.

The one of August 25,1945, made after a re-examination, showed his glasses were correct, but “he had some exophoria” and muscle exercises were recommended. Exophoria means that the visual lines tend outward. Dr. Rubenstein reported on an examination made by him on May 10,1945. At that time appellant complained to him of nervousness, headaches and spells of dizziness.

The dizziness came on when he tried to use his eyes during stooping or bending. Prior to the accident he could see quite well. Since that time his vision is somewhat blurred. The glasses do not relieve his headaches or dizziness.

The ophthalmoscopic examination was bilaterally normal. His pupils were round, equal, and reacted to light and accommodation. His visual fields were normal. Dr. Spear reported on his examination made November 29, 1944.

He said the general physical neurological examinations were entirely negative. There was no remaining evidence of injury. The appellant, however, was affected with a defense neurosis. “He very frankly states that he is afraid to work in dangerous situations.” Dr. Spear stated that there was nothing in the examination or history to prevent appellant from returning to any occupation reasonably free from danger. The Commission by its order of July 9, 1945, found that appellant had sustained a permanent partial disability under the “Other Cases” section of the Workmen’s Compensation Law as a result of his injuries “consisting of fracture at the base of the skull, lacerations of the right ear, right side of face and lacerations of left mastoid process,” and allowed compensation of $600 payable weekly at the rate of $10 per week.

The order also states “The Commission further finds that temporary total disability ceased on August 15, 1944 inclusive. The Commission finds that the claimant sustained no other permanent disability(Italics supplied) An appeal was taken by the appellant to the Circuit Court for Baltimore County. The appellee moved to dismiss the appeal because there was no issue of fact to be ⁵⁸⁸ passed on, because the award was in accordance with the law, and because the record shows that the Commission did not abuse its discretion. The appellant submitted nineteen issues, which were all excepted to by the appellee, primarily because it claimed they had not been presented to or determined by the Commission, were presented for the first time on appeal, and there was no testimony before the Commission raising any of them.

Meanwhile, the appellant had filed his petition with the Commission to re-open the case so that he could have a hearing before it on the specific issues, which he had submitted to the Court. He also petitioned the Court to stay proceedings there until the Commission had passed upon his petition to re-open. The Court refused the stay, and after hearing argument, sustained exceptions to all issues except Nos. 5. 6 and 7. These were then withdrawn by the appellant, and the Court then confirmed the award of the Commission.

This was on May 13, 1947. Subsequently, on Juy 21, 1947, the Commission denied the petition to re-open on the ground that it did not relate any newly discovered evidence. An appeal was .taken here on July 11, 1947 from the order of the Court, passed on May 13th. This rather long recital is necessary to show the facts appearing in the record, and the method of raising the questions before us.

These are first the correctness vel' non of the Court’s ruling on the issues submitted, and second whether the Court should have found that the Commission abused its discretion in allowing the claimant only six hundred dollars for permanent partial disability. The nineteen issues proposed by the appellant can be readily and naturally classified. The first issue