(Download) "Pauline Gillette v. Harold" by Supreme Court of Minnesota # eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Pauline Gillette v. Harold
- Author : Supreme Court of Minnesota
- Release Date : January 11, 1960
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 58 KB
Description
This case comes to us on certiorari to review an order of the Industrial Commission awarding compensation to an employee under
the Workmen's Compensation Act. We are asked to determine if disability resulting from aggravation of a pre-existing physical
infirmity is compensable under M.S.A. 176.021, subd. 1, as a personal injury under circumstances in which the pre-existing
physical infirmity is not causally connected with the employment but the aggravation of such infirmity is. The employee has been employed for a period of more than 17 years as a saleslady by Harold, Inc., a ladies' ready-to-wear
store. Her compensation is on a commission basis. It appears that her earnings have averaged $115 per week. She worked a full
40-hour week and was necessarily required to be on her feet standing and walking most of the time. At the time of this litigation
she was 53 years of age, weighed approximately 118 pounds, and was about 5 feet 3 inches in height. It appears from the record
that she became aware of a painful condition in her left foot in January 1952 as a result of a chip fracture of the "lateral
cuboid bone" of her left foot. There is also reference in the record to a gout condition from which she suffered at or about
this time. The latter condition apparently cleared up and there was medical testimony to the effect that it had no relation
to the condition of her foot which was found to be disabling. She continued to work until May 1957 when she was informed by
an orthopedic surgeon that she had a permanent disorder in her left great toe that could be helped by surgery. The condition
was diagnosed as a "deteriorative disorder of the metatarsal phalangeal joint of the left great toe," which resulted in stiffness
of that joint. There was no evidence that this condition was in any way caused by her employment. About 2 months after surgery,
which was calculated to alleviate the pain caused by this condition, the employee returned to work. There was medical testimony
that at the time of the trial the head of the metatarsal bone and the phalange of the great toe had come together again causing
a stiffening accompanied by pain. This will require further surgery. There was testimony that she would have to "quit working,
or have the joint stiffened." The doctor testified that she sustained a 35-percent disability of the foot and that she would
be away from work for a minimum period of 3 months. The medical testimony was that if she were to continue in her employment
this additional surgery was necessary. The doctor testified, however, "I think she could keep house and not have any operation."