Ganske v. North Dakota Workmen's Compensation Bureau

• Decision Date: 23 October 1984
• Docket Number: No. 10676,10676
• Citation: 355 N.W.2d 800
• Parties: Hilda M. GANSKE, Appellant, v. NORTH DAKOTA WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION BUREAU, Appellee. Civ.
• Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

Page 800

355 N.W.2d 800

Hilda M. GANSKE, Appellant, v. NORTH DAKOTA WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION BUREAU, Appellee.

Civ. No. 10676.

Supreme Court of North Dakota.

Oct. 23, 1984.

Mahoney & Mahoney, Center, for appellant; argued by John Mahoney, center.

Joseph F. Larson, II, Asst. Atty. Gen., N.D., Workmen's Compensation Bureau, Bismarck, for appellee.

PEDERSON, Justice.

Hilda Ganske appeals from a district court judgment upholding the North Dakota Workmen's Compensation Bureau's (the Bureau) denial of her claim for benefits for injuries resulting from a heart attack she suffered during the course of her employment. We affirm.

Hilda was employed as a kitchen helper for the Center School District for approximately four years. She assisted four other employees in the preparation and serving of lunch for approximately 345 students at the school, and her job sometimes required her to carry large kettles and containers of food at various stages of preparing and serving it.

Hilda testified that, on the date of her heart attack, she followed the normal routine for preparing and serving lunch which included chicken. After assisting in preparing the meal, Hilda experienced a severe pain while serving it to the students. After finishing her duties at work Hilda returned home, but shortly thereafter her husband took her to the hospital. She was treated for "an acute coronary artery disease spasm and anginal attack."

Hilda filed a claim for workmen's compensation benefits. When her claim was denied by the Bureau, she filed an appeal with the district court. It upheld the Bureau's denial of her claim, and Hilda has filed this appeal from the district court's judgment.

Section 65-05-05, NDCC, provides for the payment of compensation and other benefits to an employee who has been injured in the course of his employment. Under Section 65-01-11, NDCC, a claimant has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that he is entitled to benefits. The term "compensable injury" is defined under Subsection 7 of Section 65-01-02, NDCC, which provides in relevant part "If an injury is due to heart attack or stroke, such heart attack or stroke must be causally related to the worker's employment, with reasonable medical certainty, and must have been precipitated by unusual stress."

It is well settled that in reviewing the findings of an administrative agency on appeal this Court must exercise restraint; rather than making an independent finding of fact or substituting our judgment for that of the agency, we determine only whether a reasoning mind reasonably could have determined that the factual conclusions of the Bureau were proved by the weight of the evidence. Power Fuels, Inc. v. Elkin, 283 N.W.2d 214 (N.D.1979).

The dispositive issue on this appeal is whether or not the Bureau's finding that Hilda failed to prove that her heart attack was "precipitated by unusual stress" is supported by a preponderance of the evidence. We conclude that it is, and for that reason we affirm the Bureau's denial of Hilda's claim for benefits.

Hilda's doctor, A.E. VanVranken, testified by deposition that given the severity of Hilda's existing coronary artery disease there was "absolutely no question" that her heart attack was caused by the exertion required by her work duties on that day. He testified that, with reasonable medical certainty, it was quite apparent the stress of Hilda's job and the tasks that were assigned to her caused her heart attack. However, on cross-examination, Dr. VanVranken testified that he was unaware that Hilda had a history of smoking, that he was unfamiliar with the ordinary and usual duties of Hilda's employment, and that he would be unable to state whether or not Hilda's duties on the date of her heart attack deviated from the ordinary and usual duties of her employment.

Hilda testified that on that day she proceeded in the ordinary and normal routine except that she felt more stress than usual because in preparing chicken "you had...