delivered the opinion of the Court.
This suit was instituted in the Chancery Court of Davidson County, under the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Law, Code, Section 6851 et seq., by petitioner, William Henry Craig, against his employer, Marquette Cement Manufacturing Company, seeking’ to rеcover benefits for the loss of his left eye. The Special Chancellor dismissed petitioner’s suit on the ground that the loss of his left eye was the result of a disease and not an accident.
It is stated in the petition that on and prior to August 20, 1948, petitioner “was employed as a laborer on the hammer-mill floor running a hammer-mill conveyer belt, and, at a moment when looking up at the belt, a rock struck petitioner’s left eye, which said rock was thrown out either from the hammer-mill or from the belt above the hammer-mill. ’ ’
On October 11, 1948, petitioner’s eye was removed in an оperation at the St. Thomas Hospital in Nashville. Dr. Lyle testified that the immediаte cause of the removal of the eye was retinal occlusiоn; that it was his opinion the retinal occlusion in petitioner’s eye was caused by disease of the blood vessels, and not as a result of the accident; that “occlusion of the retinal vein is probably most frequently cаused by diseases of the blood vessels.” Dr. Lyle further testified fhat the inflamed condition and general redness in petitioner’s eye was, at the time he was first examined, mild.
According to the testimony of Drs. Sullivan and Lyle, the injury sustained by petitionеr on August 20, 1948,
As the Special Chancellor observed, the positive medical testimony is against the contention of petitioner and in favor of defendant. The record discloses that petitioner hаd been suffering from a disease of the eyes known as glaucoma at thе time of the alleged accident. So, we are confronted with the well-established rule in this State that where there is material evidence to support the finding of the trial judge, such finding will not be disturbed by this Court on appeal. P. H. Reynolds & Co. v. McKnight,
It will be noted that the eye specialist to whom petitioner first went was not cаlled as a witness by him.. The failure to call an available witness possessing рeculiar knowledge concerning facts essential to defendant’s сause, relying instead upon evidence of witnesses less familiar with the mattеr, gives rise to a strong presumption that the testimony of such uninterrogated witnеss would not sustain the contentions of defendant. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Finley,
When a case concerns a highly specialized branch of medical science, courts must depend largely upon expert testimony. National Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Follett,