Cooper v. Department of Labor and Industries of Washington
| Decision Date | 29 June 1938 |
| Docket Number | 26961. |
| Citation | 80 P.2d 830,195 Wash. 315 |
| Parties | COOPER v. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIES OF WASHINGTON. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Department 1.
Appeal from Superior Court, Thurston County; John M. Wilson, Judge.
Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Virginia Cooper widow of John M. Cooper, deceased, for a pension, opposed by the Department of Labor and Industries of the State of Washington. From a judgment disallowing claim, claimant appeals.
Affirmed.
F. W. Loomis, of Aberdeen, and A. P. Wilson, of Montesano, for appellant.
G. W Hamilton, Atty. Gen., and J. A. Kavaney, Asst. Atty. Gen for respondent.
This appeal is from a judgment disallowing appellant's claim for a pension.
Appellant's husband, John M. Cooper, who will be designated as 'decedent,' had been in the employ of the Mason County Logging Company for more than twenty-five years, and was engaged by that company at the time of the alleged accident in the capacity of a donkey engineer. On Monday April 8, 1935, while engaged in the discharge of his duties in an admittedly extrahazardous employment, decedent was struck with a donkey line across the back just below the shoulders. As a result he suffered a small abrasion over his forehead and a bruise on his back. Appellant testified she observed a small scab on decedent's back the day Before he passed away, but the physician who attended him testified that he stripped him to the waist, examined him carefully, both back and front, and did not observe anything which indicated to him there had been any injury.
After the line had struck decedent, he discontinued his work for about five minutes, then resumed and continued to work every day during the week until the following Friday, April 12. On that day he fainted and fell several times, and was taken home. April 13, decedent made a professional call upon a physician. He informed the physician that he had been sick one day, that he had a chill, was nauseated, had vomited the day Before , and had pains all over his body. The examination at that time of the attending physician disclosed that decedent had what appeared to be an inflammation in the bronchial tubes in the chest, a slight cough, and a few dry rales. The physician directed him to go to a hospital which he did on April 13.
There the case was diagnosed as influenzal bronchial pneumonia. He passed away there April 20, 1935.
January 29, 1936, appellant filed a claim for a widow's pension with the department of labor and industries claiming that decedent died as the result of an injury sustained in the accident hereinBefore mentioned.
Five separate hearings to take testimony were held by examiners of the joint board at intervals commencing June 27, 1936, and concluding May 1, 1937. All of the evidence was taken Before the examiners of the department and not Before the joint board.
April 8, 1936, the supervisor of industrial insurance entered an order rejecting the claim for pension on the ground that the death of decedent was not the result of the injury alleged or of a trauma. Thereupon appellant appealed to the joint board, which granted a rehearing, and after considering the entire record, sustained the order of the supervisor.
Upon appeal to the superior court the decision of the department was upheld, and claimant appeals.
A number of assignments of error are set forth, but they present only two questions: First, whether the evidence offered on behalf of appellant is sufficient to establish the fact that decedent died as a result of the injury; and, second, whether the trial court erred in failing to rule separately in writing on each of the objections and exceptions on the part of the department and counsel for the respective litigants, made during the reception of testimony Before the departmental examiners.
At the hearings Before the joint board a number of lay witnesses testified that decedent's health was good until he was hit by the donkey line, but thereafter he became sick and pale; lost his erect posture; that his appetite was not good; that he could no longer climb the hill at the scene of the logging operations; and that he complained of a pain in his back.
While the testimony of non-expert witnesses has some bearing upon the question involved, yet the actual facts in the present situation must be determined mostly from the testimony of the medical witnesses. Stevich v. Department of Labor and Industries, 182 Wash. 401, 47 P.2d 32, and cases cited.
At the same hearings a number of expert witnesses were examined. The medical testimony is not entirely harmonious. All of the physicians who testified, agreed, however, that this trauma might have weakened decedent's resistance and have lowered his vitality. There was also unanimity of opinion among them to the effect that the medical profession recognized that a trauma of a certain character could produce pneumonia, but different views were entertained by the physicians as to whether this...
To continue reading
Request your trial