Byrne v. Clark Equip. Co.
Decision Date | 10 June 1942 |
Docket Number | No. 26.,26. |
Citation | 4 N.W.2d 509,302 Mich. 167 |
Parties | BYRNE v. CLARK EQUIPMENT CO. et al. |
Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Proceeding under the Occupational Disease Law by Josephine Byrne, widow of Joseph L. Byrne, deceased, against the Clark Equipment Company and the Liberty Mutual Insurance Company. A deputy commissioner of the Department of Labor and Industry awarded the plaintiff compensation. On review of the award by the Department of Labor and Industry the award was affirmed, and the defendants appeal.
Award vacated.
Appeal from Department of Labor and Industry.
Before the Entire Bench
Alexander, McCaslin & Cholette, of Grand Rapids, for appellants.
Donahue & Grathwohl, of Niles, for appellee.
Defendants appeal from an award of the department of labor and industry granting plaintiff compensation of $18 per week for 300 weeks, beginning March 1, 1941, together with medical, hospital, and funeral expenses.
Plaintiff's decedent husband was employed by defendant Clark Equipment Company. His regular work was the lifting of steel axle housings, weighing from approximately 60 to 180 pounds, off a cooling rack and carrying them six or seven feet to a rolling machine. During an eight-hour day's work he handled from 240 to 300 axle housings.
On February 7, 1941, plaintiff's decedent told the personnel manager of the Clark Equipment Company that ‘he thought he had a rupture.’ He was instructed to go to the first aid department and make out the ‘usual form.’ On the same date plaintiff's decedent went to Dr. Henderson, a physician and surgeon who, the record indicates, was not employed by defendant Clark company. Dr. Henderson examined him and found that he had a ventral hernia, located about two inches above the navel, and advised an operation. On February 20, 1941, Dr. Henderson operated on him for repair of the hernia and during the operation removed his appendix. Following such operation infection developed, and on February 28, 1941, plaintiff's decedent died of peritonitis.
On March 21, 1941, plaintiff filed application under the so-called occupational disease law, Act No. 10, part 7, Pub. Acts 1912, 1st Ex. Sess., as added by Act No. 61, Pub. Acts 1937, Comp. Laws Supp.1940, § 8485-1 et seq., Stat.Ann.1941 Cum.Supp. § 17.220 et seq., for compensation for the death of her husband. Defendant answered denying liability. The matter was heard before a deputy commissioner of the department of labor and industry who awarded compensation of $18 per week for the statutory period of 300 weeks, together with medical, hospital, and funeral expenses. On review the award of the deputy commissioner was affirmed by the department, its opinion stating, in part:
contention, that there is no positive testimony as to the definite source of the infection that resulted in peritonitis and the same will be borne out upon observing the testimony of both of the doctors who testified for the defendants and plaintiff respectively. * * * ‘Our supreme court has said, where the doctors opine the department cannot find and in the case at bar we do not feel that it is necessary to solve the medical enigma that the medical testimony finds itself enmeshed in, with particular reference to the source of the infection that resulted in peritonitis and death of plaintiff's decedent.
‘The record clearly indicates that plaintiff's decedent suffered a hernia as the result of strain arising out of and in the course of his employment; in order to repair same an operation became necessary, infection followed, the source of which is unknown peritonitis developed resulting in death.’
Defendants were granted leave to appeal. In their brief defendants admit, in effect, that the ventral hernia sustained by plaintiff's decedent arose out of and in the course of his employment and was promptly reported. However, they contend, in substance, that under the department's finding that it could not determine the source of the infection resulting in plaintiff's decedent's death, plaintiff has failed to sustain the burden of proof that the hernia and operation therefor was the proximate cause of death.
Plaintiff contends, as stated in her brief, that the operation was performed primarily for the repair of the hernia, which arose out of and in the course of the decedent's employment; that the removal of the appendix was an incident of such operation; that the decedent died as a result of infection following such operation; that, although it is unknown whether the infection resulted from the repair of the hernia or the removal of the appendix, there is a reasonable inference that such infection and death resulted from the repair of the hernia.
Dr. Henderson, who performed the operation, testified, in part:
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
Dr. Mitchell, called as a witness by defendant Clark company, testified, in part:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hagerman v. Gencorp Automotive
...proximate cause under the statute.... [Id. at 649, 292 N.W. 511][ 20 The Court addressed the same issue again in Byrne v. Clark Equipment Co., 302 Mich. 167, 4 N.W.2d 509 (1942). There, the decedent developed a hernia at work that required surgical repair. However, during the operation, the......
-
Stimson v. Michigan Bell Tel. Co.
...is not compensable under the act. Crawley v. General Motors Truck Corp., 259 Mich. 503, 244 N.W. 143 (1932); Byrne v. Clark Equipment Co., 302 Mich. 167, 4 N.W.2d 509 (1942); and Moore v. Federal Department Stores, Inc., 33 Mich.App. 556, 190 N.W.2d 262 (1971); Panagos v. North Detroit Gene......
- Buskirk v. Ide
-
Lauder v. Paul M. Wiener Foundry, 4
...with those in the case at bar has previously come before this Court under the section above quoted. However, in Byrne v. Clark Equipment Co., 302 Mich. 167, 4 N.W.2d 509, 512, the question arose whether plaintiff had established by proof her right to compensation for the death of her husban......