Carpenter v. Calco Chemical Division of American Cyanamid Co. of Bound Brook

• Decision Date: 19 May 1949
• Docket Number: No. A--36,A--36
• Citation: 4 N.J.Super. 53,66 A.2d 177
• Parties: CARPENTER v. CALCO CHEMICAL DIVISION OF AMERICAN CYANAMID CO. OF BOUND BROOK.
• Court: New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division

Page 53

4 N.J.Super. 53

66 A.2d 177

CARPENTER v. CALCO CHEMICAL DIVISION OF AMERICAN CYANAMID CO. OF BOUND BROOK.

No. A--36.

Superior Court of New Jersey

Appellate Division, Part A.

Argued May 2, 1949.

Decided May 19, 1949.

Before JACOBS, Senior Judge, and EASTWOOD and BIGELOW, JJ.

Mr. Aaron Gordon, of Jersey City, argued the cause for the petitioner-appellant (Mr. Louis Steisel and Miss Elsie L. White, of Jersey City, Attorneys).

Mr. Frederick W. Hall, Somerville, argued the cause for the respondent-respondent (Wharton & Hall, Somerville, Attorneys).

JACOBS, Judge.

This is an appeal from a judgment in the Somerset County Court of Common Pleas reversing an award for petitioner in the Workmen's Compensation Bureau.

Prior to July 10, 1942, the decedent had been a private chauffeur and had not, to his wife's knowledge, required medical attention or suffered illness prior to his death. On July 10, 1942, he received a preemployment examination at the respondent's plant which disclosed that he had 'overactive hypertension' and that his blood pressure was 176/94. In other respects the findings were negative and he was employed by respondent as a production maintenance helper to being work on July 13, 1942. He worked daily from July 13, 1942, through July 20, 1942, on which date he quit work at the usual time of 4:15 p.m. and took a shower. Immediately thereafter at 4:30 p.m. he went to the medical director at the plant who testified that the decedent 'complained of exhaustion at the time when he came in and he felt very tired and was sweating profusely.' The director put him to bed, kept him quiet and gave him salt tablets. Shortly thereafter the decedent complained of a sharp pain in the chest, was given nitroglycerin, then morphine, and died at 5:50 p.m. of a coronary occlusion.

The decedent's work during the week prior to his death was described by the maintenance supervisor as 'Maybe helping pipefitters; he may have been helping--what we have is millwrights, doing millwright work, and he may have been picking up scraps or cleaning up around about; regular helper's work.' The precise nature of his work on the day of his death was the subject of sharp dispute. Mr. Glendon Horn testified that on July 20, 1942, the decedent had been assigned to him as helper; that they were engaged in changing a dump valve on a kettle; that they used a 4 foot wrench weighing 60 to 70 pounds to unscrew the pipe; that the work was exceedingly heavy and required every ounce of strength that he and the decedent had; that it was 'awfully hot' and the decedent could not keep up with the work, requiring that they 'ease up' every 15 or 20 minutes and go out for fresh air; and that on several occasions during the day the decedent told him that the work was too much for him. In corroboration Mr. Gallian testified that on July 20, 1942, he observed the decedent helping Mr. Horn change the dump value on the kettle.

The respondent produced testimony by its maintenance supervisor, Mr. Abercromby, and by two former employees, Mr. Stow and Mr. Brown, that the decedent was not engaged in changing the dump valve as described by Mr. Horn, but was engaged, with others, in removing a coil, an activity which they described as not involving any unusual exertion. However, our study of the testimony led us to the conclusion that even the coil removal, under the circumstances presented, involved unusual strain and effort. The coil which weights about 700 pounds was removed with the aid of a chain block on an overhead mono rail. Ordinarily, in the language of Mr. Abercromby, 'We can do that in 4 hours with 4 men'; that day it took 8 men 8 hours to do the job. Mr. Abercromby testified that, 'I stood there when they pulled that out, for the reason I had to go and get more men to help them pull it out'. From the foregoing, the respondent seeks to draw the inference that the work was lighter than usual because it was done more slowly and by more men. It seems to us that a contrary inference is the proper one. The day was very hot, the men were finding the removal of the coil exceedingly difficult and although additional men were called it still took them twice the customary time. We believe that the evidence establishes that the decedent's activity on July 20, 1942, involved unusual exertion and strain regardless of whether we accept Mr. Abercromby's or Mr. Horn's testimony.

Although the medical testimony is conflicting and somewhat confusing because the petitioner's doctors did not have the results of the autopsy which had been made under the respondent's supervision, we believe that it sufficiently establishes causal relation between the decedent's unusual exertion and strain and his death as a result of coronary occlusion. Respondent places reliance upon the fact that the autopsy disclosed degeneration of an atheromatous plaque which was described as 'a softening of the material and sometimes under pressure it either seeps out or breaks off'. In response to the inquiry as to whether the softening or breaking off may be the result of effort or strain, one of respondent's doctors testified that, 'We don't think so.' On the other hand, one of petitioner's doctors testified on cross examination that the...