Gaetz v. City of Melrose

• Decision Date: 04 May 1923
• Docket Number: No. 23337.,23337.
• Citation: 155 Minn. 330,193 N.W. 691
• Parties: GAETZ et al. v. CITY OF MELROSE et al.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

155 Minn. 330

193 N.W. 691

GAETZ et al.

v.CITY OF MELROSE et al.

No. 23337.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

May 4, 1923.

Certiorari from District Court, Stearns County; John Roeser, Judge.

Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Helen Gaetz, as special administratrix, and others, opposed by the City of Melrose and others, for compensation for the death of Anthony Gaetz. The trial court found that decedent died as the result of an injury received in the course of employment, and defendants bring certiorari. Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

The evidence in this case is sufficient to sustain a finding that an injury received by a deceased police officer, while in the course of his employment, was a contributing cause of his death. L. N. Foster, of Minneapolis, and J. D. Sullivan, of St. Cloud, for appellants.

Donohue & Quigley, of St. Cloud, for respondents.

HALLAM, J.

Anthony Gaetz was a police officer of the city of Melrose. On July 5, 1919, while making an arrest, he was violently assaulted, and was injured in the abdomen. During the summer he developed a cancer in his right abdomen. This was discovered late in August. On September 24, 1919, he died. Plaintiff, his widow, made claim for compensation under the Compensation Act (Gen. St. 1913, §§ 8195-8230). The trial court found that the cancer was a result of the injury and that as a result of the injury he died. Defendant brought certiorari, and contends that there is no evidence to sustain the decision.

The finding must be sustained, unless the evidence, together with all reasonable and fair inferences, that may be drawn therefrom, can lead reasonable minds only to the conclusion that the finding is wrong. State ex rel. Niessen v. District Court, 142 Minn. 335, 172 N. W. 133;State ex rel. Rinker v. District Court, 142 Minn. 420, 172 N. W. 311.

The evidence is in substance as follows: Gaetz was 64 years old. Prior to the injury he was in good general health. He never walked lame. After the injury he was distressed, walked lame on his right leg, suffered pain, moaned in his sleep. When the cancer became apparent it progressed very rapidly. Dr. Goehrs attended him from about August 18th to September 5th. Dr. Goehrs testified that the growth he saw probably caused death or very easily could cause death. He testified that a tumor or cancer may result from a blow. When asked if, in his opinion, a growth of that kind could be caused by a blow, he said, ‘It is possible but not reasonably probable.’

Dr. Cross, who took the case September 5, 1919, when asked, ‘Could this condition * * * in the abdomen be caused by a blow?’ answered, ‘It might be a contributing cause.’ Asked if a growth of that kind could develop from July 10th to September 5th, he said, ‘It might be possible.’ He further said ‘that a growth of that size and that consistency of a malignant tumor would ordinarily take anywhere from six weeks to three months to develop.’ Asked if there was a reasonable probability that the injury was the cause of the origin and growth of this cancerous growth, he said, ‘I should have to answer no, to that,’ that the best he could say was that ‘it is possible that it might happen.’ He said, however, in substance, that if there is a cancerous growth started, and a blow like that, it might increase the growth already started. Asked if it would produce death quicker he answered, ‘Yes, sir,...