Guyon v. Swift & Co.

• Citation: 295 N.W. 185,229 Iowa 625
• Decision Date: 10 December 1940
• Docket Number: 45393.
• Parties: GUYON v. SWIFT & CO. et al.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Iowa

295 N.W. 185

229 Iowa 625

GUYON v. SWIFT & CO. et al.

No. 45393.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

December 10, 1940

Appeal from District Court, Marshall County; L. J. Kirkland, Judge.

This is a workmen's compensation case. The deputy industrial commissioner made an award to claimant, widow of William Guyon, deceased. On review, the industrial commissioner affirmed the award. On appeal to the district court, the decision of the industrial commissioner was affirmed.

Affirmed on defendants' appeal from the district court's decision.

Joe B Tye, of Marshalltown, for appellee.

Boardman & Cartwright and Harry Druker, all of Marshalltown for appellants.

STIGER, Justice.

The material portion of section 1453, 1939 Code reads:

" 1453 Decision on appeal . Any order or decision of the industrial commissioner may be modified, reversed, or set aside on one or more of the following grounds and on no other: * * *

4. If there is not sufficient competent evidence in the record to warrant the making of the order or decision."

The principal question before us is whether there was sufficient competent evidence to sustain the decision of the commissioner that there was a causal connection between Mr. Guyon's work in defendant's plant and the injury that caused his death.

Prior to 1938, William Guyon was employed by Roberts and Oaks, operators of a packing plant in Marshalltown, Iowa, as a stationary engineer. In February, the defendant, Swift and Company, took over the plant and made Guyon its electrician for the entire plant. When Mr. Guyon left his home for work at 8 o'clock on the morning of November 25, 1938 he appeared in good health and had been in apparent good health for many years. About 9 o'clock on the morning of November 25 the electrically operated conveyor which carries the hogs to the several dressing stations did not move when the foreman turned on the switch. Over one hundred employees were unable to perform their duties until the trouble was remedied. The chief engineer called Guyon and Mr. Ball, the plant carpenter, and told them the motor would not start and " to get it going" . Mr. Guyon was then in the basement of the plant. He was 60 years old and weighed over 200 pounds. When called he immediately walked up a ramp, then up a series of stairs, climbed up a verticle ladder over 13 feet high to the balcony, then went along the runway of the balcony to the motor which failed to operate the conveyor. It took Mr. Guyon from 20 to 25 minutes to find the trouble and to get the conveyor started. The record does not show where Mr. Guyon found the source of the breakdown. It appears he went back to the main floor during his search for the cause of the trouble. When asked how many times Guyon went up and down the ladder, Mr. Ball stated, " I couldn't say, but perhaps twice." Ball testified Guyon was hurrying, that he was not running but was hurrying to the best of his ability to locate the trouble; that there was an emergency; that Guyon was a little red in the face; that he was excited or nervous because he was having difficulty in locating the trouble.

The engineer testified Guyon was a fast worker; that he was working as fast as he knew how to get the conveyor going.

Soon after Mr. Guyon had started the conveyor he told Ball he had a pain in his chest and did not feel well. Guyon then sat down on a bench.

Mr. Vint, chief engineer, testified he noticed Guyon was trembling. He testified that Guyon told him he had a little pain but would be all right.

Mr. Sandvig, a fellow employee, observed Guyon lying on the bench. He said his color was sallow and he seemed to be in pain. Sandvig then took Guyon to his car for the purpose of taking him home. Observing that Guyon's suffering was increasing, Sandvig took him directly to Dr. Grossman's office, arriving there about 10:30 o'clock. Guyon told Dr. Grossman he had a terrible pain in his chest. He walked with difficulty and was stooped. Dr. Grossman immediately diagnosed his case as coronary occlusion and sent him to the hospital. Mr. Guyon died before they could get him in bed about 11 o'clock on the morning of November 25th.

Dr. Grossman and Dr. Wells performed an autopsy on the evening of November 25 in the presence of Dr. Harris. They found the left coronary artery was very hard, enlarged, and the walls impregnated with calcium. Nodules of lime deposits had formed in the lining of the artery which was not only sclerosed but was also calcified. The lumen or passageway of the artery was reduced to about one-half of its normal capacity. A small piece of the calcified wall, which the physicians call a plaque, had broken off, and, after moving with the circulation for about an inch and a half, lodged against one of the nodules and became wedged in the reduced arterial passageway causing a complete obstruction or occlusion of the artery which occlusion resulted in the death of Mr. Guyon. The heart and other vital organs were normal.

All of the medical witnesses agree that death was caused by an occlusion of the left coronary artery which shut off the blood supply to the heart. They are in sharp disagreement as to whether or not the injury causing the death rose out of and in the course of decedent's employment by defendant. Drs. Grossman and Wells were witnesses for claimant and Dr. Harris was a witness for defendant.

I.

Defendant's first proposition is that the district court erred in affirming the decision of the industrial commissioner for the reason there is not sufficient competent evidence to warrant a finding that the death of William Guyon arose out of his employment. In connection with this assignment, we will consider the evidence of Dr. Grossman, a witness for claimant. He testified as to the mechanics of the injury as follows:

" The mechanics would be quite simple. Hence finding an area from which a little piece has been broken, and then within two inches of that find a narrowing-this little flake or piece would only have to move with the circulation about two inches until it began to block this narrow constriction. Hence the mechanism of it would be some force which could break off a part of this degenerated lime deposit, or intima, in the vessel. The second part would be the blocking due to the inability of this plaque to proceed farther on in the vessel, closing the vessel partially and then completely. I suppose that would be the mechanics of it.

As this closing is going on the man has a pain, is choked, has symptoms of extreme prostration, because the heart muscle is being depleted from a large area, at least half of the heart, it is being depleted of nourishment and oxygen. Hence the heart is thrown into an extreme state of decomposition, and hence failing. That is part of the mechanics."

Dr. Grossman testified with reference to the pain that always accompanies occlusion as follows:

" The pain does not necessarily-the pain usually does not come immediately upon the beginning of symptoms. The pain begins when this section of the heart muscle is exhausted from not receiving blood supply. That will depend entirely whether this is shut off completely, and in which case it certainly would cause you severe pain and sudden death. But where we have a pain that begins probably in 15 or 20 minutes after an injury and it is the main artery obstructed, then that means that this artery is not completely obstructed at the very beginning, but that repeated impulses of the circulation against this little foreign body, or embolus, will force it farther into or wedge it into the smaller

...