Ferch v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.
| Decision Date | 07 June 1940 |
| Docket Number | No. 32416.,32416. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
| Parties | FERCH v. GREAT ATLANTIC & PACIFIC TEA CO. |
Snyder, Gale & Richards, of Minneapolis, for relator.
Bruce E. Russell and Louis H. Joss, both of Minneapolis, for respondent.
Certiorari to review an order of the industrial commission awarding compensation to the widow and surviving children of Arthur Ferch.
Saturday, February 18, 1939, Ferch was in relator's employ as a "Saturday man" at one of its large grocery stores in Minneapolis. His job was to pack groceries for customers and to carry heavy loads to their cars. At 2:15 that afternoon he was directed to carry a 100-pound sack of sugar for a customer. Twenty minutes later, the manager found him in the back room of the store. He "did not feel well." His "side pained him." On the manager's suggestion he took the rest of the day off. He walked home, experiencing severe pain in his chest and back. Later in the afternoon he walked to the office of Dr. Russeth. He returned to the store that night about closing time, and again on Tuesday and Wednesday, talking to employes. Wednesday he talked to the manager, saying he could do no bending because his side was taped. The manager told him that he would be given an "upright job" in the produce department the following Saturday. Returning home the same morning Ferch suffered severe pain and, after lunch, went to his bedroom and lay down. Shortly thereafter his wife found him dead.
The medical testimony on both sides is that death was caused by extravasation of blood into the media of the aorta artery, until the outer wall broke, permitting blood to flow into the area surrounding the heart. The flowage was caused by a tear of the intima of the aorta and a split (described as a dissecting aneurism) of the wall of the aorta. Post mortem disclosed a pint of blood in the pericardial sac.
1. The first question presented is whether there is evidence to sustain the finding that deceased suffered injury in the course of employment which led to death. Petitioner's position is that the injury and death were result of the strain of carrying the sugar. Prior thereto, deceased had seemingly been in good health. He had not lost any time from work because of illness, nor had he had occasion for medical attention. It is established that he was ordered to, and did, carry the sugar. Twenty minutes later he was found in the rear of the store suffering pain. That, taken in connection with the medical evidence, is enough, we think, to justify the inference that injury and death arose out of and in the course of employment.
Dr. McCartney, who performed the autopsy, testified for relator. On cross-examination, he stated that "the strain of lifting a sack of sugar * * * could have caused the tear of the aorta." In this, he agreed with the witnesses for petitioner, who testified that in their opinions such strain was the cause of death. There was evidence of degenerative changes in the elastic tissue of the media and an inflammatory process present in the wall. Testimony of Dr. McCartney that this condition, and not strain, was the cause of death, was expressly based...
To continue reading
Request your trial