Eisen v. Jacquard Fabrics, Inc.

• Decision Date: 12 August 1941
• Docket Number: C. P. 46138.
• Parties: EISEN v. JACQUARD FABRICS, Inc.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

21 A.2d 614

19 N.J.Misc. 526

EISEN

v. JACQUARD FABRICS, Inc.

C. P. 46138.

New Jersey Department of Labor—Workmen's Compensation Bureau.

Aug. 12, 1941.

Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Mary Eisen, claimant, opposed by Jacquard Fabrics, Incorporated, employer.

Award in favor of claimant.

Nathan Rabinowitz, of Paterson, for petitioner.

Landau & Mehler, of Hackensack, for respondent.

STAHL, Deputy Commissioner.

The sole question in controversy is whether the coronary thrombosis or occlusion, admittedly suffered by the petitioner on April 24, 1939, was the result of an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment with the respondent, or was due to natural causes independent of his said employment.

From the evidence it appears that the petitioner had been employed as a weaver by the respondent for one and a half years before the day of the alleged injury, which, he testified, occurred between seven and eight o'clock on the morning of April 24, 1939, when he collapsed as he was standing beside his machine or loom. According to the petitioner's uncontradicted testimony, he arrived at the respondent's plant at seven o'clock on the above morning in his usual state of good health, and, because of the absence of one of the workers due to illness, Eisen was instructed by Max E. Bornstein, a superior, to replenish the quill pans with water. This task, which was not part of the petitioner's regular duties, required the filling of a large galvanized iron pail with water from a sink located at the extreme end of the shop room, and then carrying the same to the various quill pans throughout the room and replenishing them by pouring from the pail. Upon lifting the sixth or the seventh loaded pail from the sink and carrying it to the pans, petitioner testified that he experienced a peculiar feeling with a choking sensation in his throat; that he continued, nevertheless, to fill the last three quill pans and then returned to his regular duties as weaver, standing alongside his two looms; that the aforementioned peculiar feeling persisted; and that about one-half hour later he fell across one of his machines in a complete state of collapse, with extreme pain radiating over his chest and under his armpits, perspiring profusely and unable to talk. He was thereupon assisted to the plant office by several co-workers where attempts were made to revive him; and a short time thereafter he was taken by automobile to the office of Dr. David Bornstein. Upon examination the doctor was of the impression that Eisen was suffering from either stenocardia (con-stricture of the heart) or coronary thrombosis (closure of the coronary artery or one of its branches), based upon the following objective symptoms: Pale in appearance; cold and clammy skin; unable to talk because of pain over the sternum and both arms and because of shock and nervousness; blood pressure of 110/78; inaudible heart sounds; and a distant pulse which could not be felt. Because of his seemingly grave condition, the petitioner was permitted to recline and rest on the examining table for a half hour or so, during which period heart and circulation stimulants were administered, following which he was driven to his home by a co-worker. Upon his arrival he repaired to bed, where he remained for seven weeks under the care of Dr. Abraham H. Apter—receiving conservative treatment for an ailment diagnosed by the doctor as coronary thrombosis. Later on when the petitioner became ambulatory, he received several months treatment at the doctor's office. He was first able to resume light work in December, 1939, when he entered the employ of the Platt Silk Co. operating but a single loom. At the present time he suffers from general weakness, shortness of breath, easily fatigues on walking or standing for any long period of time, a choking sensation in his throat and a feeling of fullness in and about the chest.

A review of the voluminous medical testimony of the various physicians appearing for the respective parties discloses a definite contrariety of opinion both as to diagnosis as well as to causal relation. The petitioner's medical experts, viz., Drs. David Bornstein, Abraham H. Apter, Adolph Kroll and J. Allen Yager, the first two being treating physicians and the latter two being cardiologists, expressed the opinion that the petitioner suffered an attack of coronary thrombosis on the day in question and that there was a definite causal relation between the unusual lifting effort of the several pails of water and the resultant coronary thrombosis. They further expressed the opinion that the petitioner at the present time is suffering from the residual effects of this condition due to infarction and cardiac damage. On the other hand, the respondent's experts, namely, Drs. R. Burton Opitz, Arthur M. Master and Raphael Gilardy, internists and cardiologists, expressed the opposite view to the effect that the...