[DOWNLOAD] "Clark v. Ottenheimer Brothers" by Supreme Court of Arkansas * Book PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Clark v. Ottenheimer Brothers
- Author : Supreme Court of Arkansas
- Release Date : January 01, 1958
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 58 KB
Description
This is a Workmen's Compensation case and the principal controversy is over what constitutes an accidental injury within the
meaning of the Act. The circuit court affirmed the full commission denying compensation, but we have concluded that the cause
must be reversed and remanded. Set out hereafter are the material facts which are not in dispute unless so indicated. Appellant, Mrs. Ovada Clark, became
an employee of the respondent, Ottenheimer Brothers, on August 26, 1953 and continued working until she was forced to quit
because of a back injury (ruptured disc) on August 30, 1954. Respondent is engaged in manufacturing wearing apparel, such
as dresses. At first appellant was employed as a sewing machine operator, then at making boxes by folding flat cardboard pieces,
but on June 14, 1954 she became what was known as a production line service girl. As such her duties were to keep each sewing
machine operator on a production line supplied with materials as they [229 Ark Page 384] came from the cutting room. It
was part of her job in this connection to carry rather large bundles and place or pile them on a cart or platform with rollers.
These bundles each contained from 3 to 5 dozen dresses and some of them weighed about 40 pounds each according to the commissioner
who first heard the case but, according to other testimony, some weighed as much as 60 pounds each. At times appellant, who
was 37 years old and only slightly over five feet tall, lifted the bundles to a height of about 6 feet in order to pile them
on the cart, and it was of course a part of her job to remove them for distribution. Appellant noticed her back hurting slightly
for about two weeks before it became so severe she had to quit work. She went to several doctors and finally it was determined
that she had a ruptured spinal disc which was removed by an operation. The insurance carrier voluntarily paid compensation
for 13 weeks and then suspended further payments on the ground that she had not sustained a compensable injury. Appellant
was still unable to return to work more than a year after her injury.