positive objective evidence of disability". It is to be observed that this witness did not testify that plaintiff was not disabled, but that he found no evidence of disability.

Opposed to the conclusions of these witnesses, the record contains the testimony of three medical experts on behalf of plaintiff, all of whom were of the opinion that plaintiff had received a disabling injury from which he continued to suffer up to the time of trial. This evidence was supported by the consistent testimony of plaintiff himself as to pain and discomfort of a nature and degree which would indicate disability, and further by the testimony of a lay witness, a neighbor of plaintiff, whose conclusions as to plaintiff's disability were drawn from observations as to the difference in plaintiff's appearance and degree of activity before and after the accident.

In assigning written reasons for judgment, our learned brother of the District Court called attention to the fact that plaintiff is a young Negro, 31 years of age, with a good work record and no previous accident claims, and that denial of his claim would be to brand him a malingerer, which conclusion he did not think justified. We are in complete accord with this finding of fact. *Page 758

As to the duration of the disability, the District Judge made the following observation, which we think appropriate: "There is no testimony in the record to fix any particular time for full recovery of plaintiff. In this situation the only thing to be done is to award him compensation for not exceeding 400 weeks from the date of his injury, less five weeks already paid.

The defendants may reopen the case at the end of six months and have plaintiff examined again."

Finding no manifest error of fact in the judgment of the District Court, it follows that the same must be affirmed.

Accordingly the judgment appealed from is affirmed at appellant's cost. *Page 812

Citation profile

How this case has been treated — in progress