Babich v. Oliver Iron Mining Company
| Decision Date | 16 November 1923 |
| Docket Number | 23,505 |
| Citation | 195 N.W. 784,157 Minn. 122 |
| Parties | VINKO BABICH v. OLIVER IRON MINING COMPANY |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Petition for Rehearing Filed November 30, 1923
Upon the relation of Vinko Babich the supreme court granted its writ of certiorari directed to the Industrial Commission of Minnesota to review proceedings before that commission under the Workmen's Compensation Act brought by relator employe, against the Oliver Iron Mining Company, employer. Reversed and remanded.
Industrial Commission not to be reversed on matter of procedure.
1. A decision of the Industrial Commission in a workman's compensation case will not be reversed on a mere matter of procedure.
What is an accidental injury under the compensation act.
2. A sudden and violent rupture or break in the physical structure of the body of an employe, caused by some strain or exertion in the employment of the master, is an accidental injury within the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Act, even though no external unforeseen event such as slipping, falling or being struck contributes thereto.
Finding required by undisputed evidence.
3. The undisputed, unimpeached testimony, not inherently improbable, nor discredited by any facts or circumstances in the case, required a finding that relator suffered an accidental injury, viz. a hernia, arising out of and in the course of his employment.
Boyle & Montague, for relator.
Dennis F. Donovan, for respondent.
This is a workman's compensation case. The employe claims he was ruptured while at work for respondent in its mine. The referee found that on June 21, 1922, the employe became temporarily totally disabled while at work, but that he failed to prove he met with accidental injuries which arose out of and in the course of his employment, and denied compensation. He appealed to the industrial commission, where the decision of the referee was affirmed. By certiorari the matter is before this court.
Some point is made as to the practice adopted by the referee. After the introduction of the employe's evidence, the employer moved to dismiss. The motion was taken under advisement, but, instead of passing on the motion, the referee made findings of fact and conclusions of law dismissing the petition of the employe on the merits. We do not think the Workmen's Compensation Statute requires the procedure thereunder to be the same in every respect as in the ordinary trial courts. So long as the parties have full opportunity to present their evidence and be heard on the claim in conformity to the provisions of the act, this court should not reverse on mere form of procedure.
The testimony of the employe is that he and a fellow workman, about 8 o'clock in the evening, were at work in respondent's mine timbering a drift. They loaded a low truck with some posts, or timbers and lagging, and moved the truck to where the stuff was to be used. One of the posts, or timbers, was about 6 feet long, 12 inches at the butt and 8 inches at the top. As relator took hold of this timber at the butt, and the other man at the top, to lift it off the truck, he felt a severe pain, became dizzy and sank to his knees. He was unable to continue at any work because of the pain. The foreman was informed of his condition. He rested a couple of hours, thereafter managed to walk to the shaft of the mine, then to the change house and got in his street clothes, went to the street car a short distance, and walked from the street car to his home, a few blocks away. The next morning he went to the employer's hospital at Eveleth complaining of pain around the abdomen and back. The doctor did not discover hernia. Three or four days thereafter, the pain not ceasing, he visited the employer's doctor at Gilbert, who at once discovered a right inguinal hernia. At the employer's hospital an operation to cure the hernia was refused, unless relator would agree to pay therefor. Some 5 weeks thereafter he went to Duluth and submitted to an operation. The surgeon who performed the operation was the only other witness produced. He testified to the conditions existing. He found that the left inguinal ring was enlarged, probably a congenital weakness. In the right groin he found a rupture in the muscle and fascia in and adjacent to the ring -- the small bowel protruding. He gave his opinion that this was a recent hernia, because of the tenderness, muscle spasm and pain, the absence of adhesions and the thinness of the sac. He concluded the rupture was traumatic injury caused by the lifting.
If there is any evidence fairly sustaining the findings they must stand. State ex rel. Niessen v. District Court, 142 Minn. 335, 172 N.W. 133. The referee and commission are not necessarily concluded by undisputed testimony. State ex rel. Jefferson v. District Court, 138 Minn. 334, 164 N.W. 1012. But these statements of law must be applied in the light of another well-settled principle, viz., the court, or the person or commission, whose duty it is to determine facts upon competent evidence, must accept as true the positive, unimpeached testimony of credible witnesses, unless the same is inherently improbable or rendered so by facts and circumstances disclosed at the hearing. Second Nat. Bank v. Donald, 56 Minn. 491, 58 N.W. 269; Campbell v. Canadian Northern Ry. Co. 124 Minn. 245, 144 N.W. 772; Goedhard v. Folstead, 156 Minn. 453, 195 N.W. 281. The rule has been recognized and its exceptions applied in a number of cases. Schwartz v. Germania Life Ins. Co. 21 Minn. 215; Hawkins v. Sauby, 48 Minn. 69, 50 N.W. 1015; Burud v. Great Northern Ry. Co. 62 Minn. 243, 64 N.W. 562; Jensen v. Fischer, 134 Minn. 366, 159 N.W. 827; Olsson v. Midland Ins. Co. 138 Minn. 424, 165 N.W. 474.
Tested by these decisions we are of opinion the evidence established as positively as the injury permits that relator's hernia was an accidental injury received in and arising out of his employment. The compensation law defines personal injuries due to accident "to mean an unexpected or unforeseen event, happening suddenly and violently, with or without human fault, and producing at the time injury to the physical structure of the body." Laws 1921, p. 126, c. 82, § 66, subd. h. In this case we have an unexpected or unforeseen event, the injury. Relator did not expect or foresee that his lifting the timber would produce hernia. It happened suddenly and violently, for relator at once sank down on his knees with pain, indicating physical violence done to the body. And when shortly thereafter the body was opened the recently ruptured muscles and fascia clearly proved that the cause of the sudden collapse and pain was the injury to the physical structure of the body that must have occurred at the time of the attempted lifting of the timber.
From the referee's memorandum, as well as that of...
To continue reading
Request your trial