Hoage v. Royal Indemnity Co.

• Citation: 90 F.2d 387,67 App. DC 142
• Decision Date: 05 April 1937
• Docket Number: No. 6687.,6687.
• Parties: HOAGE, Deputy Com'r, et al. v. ROYAL INDEMNITY CO. et al.
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)

67 App. DC 142, 90 F.2d 387 (1937)

HOAGE, Deputy Com'r, et al. v. ROYAL INDEMNITY CO. et al.

No. 6687.

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

Decided April 5, 1937.

Rehearing Denied June 17, 1937.

Leslie C. Garnett, U. S. Atty., District of Columbia, Allen J. Krouse, Asst. U. S. Atty., District of Columbia, James E. McCabe, Z. Lewis Dalby, and W. E. Boote, all of Washington, D. C., for appellants.

Frederic N. Towers, Norman B. Frost, Frank H. Myers, all of Washington, D. C., for appellees.

Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, and VAN ORSDEL and GRONER, Associate Justices.

MARTIN, Chief Justice.

This is an appeal from a decree of the lower court vacating an award of workmen's compensation granted to James S. Rennie by the Deputy Commissioner of Compensation under the provisions of the compensation law of the District of Columbia — Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (U.S.C.A. title 33, c. 18, §§ 901-950), as made applicable in the District of Columbia by the Act of May 17, 1928 (D.C.Code, title 19, c. 2, §§ 11, 12 and 33 U.S.C.A. § 901 note). The testimony heard by the Deputy Commissioner appears in the record.

It appears that James S. Rennie was first employed by appellee Royal Indemnity Company in May, 1932, as a claims adjuster, which position involved investigations of accidents and the settlement of claims. During the early part of 1933, the claims handled by Rennie increased materially so that he was required to stay late at the office and frequently to work evenings at his home in Baltimore. He did not, however, ask assistance from his employer. He began to worry when getting behind with his work and for nine months suffered from fatigue, headaches, insomnia, and heartburn. On April 28, 1934, he suffered a heart attack requiring him to seek medical assistance. Thereafter he continued with his usual duties, against the advice of his physician, until the morning of May 5, 1934, when, while sitting at his desk using the telephone he suffered another heart attack similar to the previous one but of greater severity. Opiates were administered and he was taken to the hospital, where he remained until June 1, 1934. Since that date he has been away from his employment, and in the opinion of his attending physician is totally incapacitated for any arduous labor. On March 7, 1935, he filed a formal claim for compensation and medical benefits. Prior to that time, however, he had not given either to his employer or to the Deputy Commissioner a formal notice of his claim.

At the hearing before the Deputy Commissioner the basis of Rennie's claim was stated to be overwork and worry for nine months or more culminating in disability on May 5, 1934. The appellees defended on the ground that he had not suffered from an "accidental injury" within the meaning of section 2 of the Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C.A. § 902; and also that notice of his claim had not been given in accordance with section 12 of the Act (33 U. S.C.A. § 912).

The Deputy Commissioner awarded compensation to Rennie. Whereupon the appellees brought suit in the lower court to vacate the award. Their bill was sustained by that court, and the present appeal was then taken.

In the compensation order entered by the Deputy Commissioner the following statements of fact are reported as his findings upon the evidence:

"That on the 5th day of May 1934 James S. Rennie, the claimant herein, was in the employ of the employer above named * * *; that on the said date the claimant herein while in the employ of the employer above named as a claim adjuster suffered an attack of angina pectoris resulting in his total disability and that said disability has been continuous and still exists; that for about nine months prior to May 5, 1934, the claimant herein had been suffering from frequent violent headaches, fatigue, insomnia, and heartburn; that due to the increased amount of work that was given to the claimant to do prior to this date, the claimant was compelled to take work home nights and to work overtime in the office, and in spite of the extra time he was compelled to put in by reason of the extra amount of work loaded upon him, he was unable to handle the said work properly; that the said working conditions caused the claimant to suffer from nervous strain and fatigue; that by reason of the extra amount of work he was compelled to do and the nervous strain suffered by reason thereof the claimant sustained an injury which arose out of and occurred in the course of his employment and resulted in his disability within the meaning of the Act; that the claimant was suffering from a preexisting disease known as arteriosclerosis; that the arteriosclerosis which was preexistent formed the basis for the angina pectoris; and that the angina pectoris was naturally followed by coronary thrombosis, and that the attack or angina which occurred April 28, and May 5, 1934, and was followed by the coronary thrombosis of May 5, was precipitated by overwork and emotional strain resulting from the large amount of work the claimant was called upon to do as described above; that the insurance carrier objected to the payment of compensation on the ground that the claimant had not given notice as provided in section 12 of the Act.

"It is found that the employer had knowledge of the overwork the claimant was compelled to do, and that the claimant was in need of assistance in his office to carry on his work; that the employer also had knowledge within thirty days of the fact that the claimant suffered a collapse on May 5, 1934; that the employer had every privilege of determining the merits of the case at the time, and it is found that the rights of the employer had not been prejudiced by reason of the failure of the claimant to make a formal report within thirty days from the date of his collapse, as provided in section 12 of the Act; that the claimant therefore is excused on the ground that at the time of his collapse, he did not know the seriousness of his condition, and the facts of the relation between his occupation and his condition was not made known to the claimant immediately. * * *" On these facts the Deputy Commissioner based his findings that the injury was compensable and made the award in question.

In the bill for an injunction filed by the appellees in the lower court it is averred among other things that the Deputy Commissioner erred in finding that the disability sustained by the claimant was the result of accidental injury within the meaning of section 2 of the act; and that the findings excusing the claimant from filing claim within thirty days as required by section 12 of the act are erroneous in law and in fact.

The lower court held that the compensation award embodied in the order of the Deputy Commissioner was "not in accordance with law" and accordingly decreed that the order and award be set aside and that the defendants be enjoined from enforcing the same.

The first question arising in the case is whether the employee, Rennie, sustained an accidental injury within the meaning of section 2 of the District of Columbia Workmen's Compensation Act which reads in part as follows:

"Sec. 2. When used in this Act chapter * * * (2) The term `injury' means accidental injury or death arising out of and in the course of employment, and such occupational disease or infection as arises naturally out of such employment or as naturally or unavoidably results from such accidental injury, and includes an injury caused by the willful act of a third person directed against an employee because of his employment."

It is conceded that under the law applicable to this case the facts found by the Deputy Commissioner may not be disturbed upon appeal where there is any competent evidence to support them, but the court may deny effect to such findings if they are without evidence or contrary to the indisputable character of the evidence. Crowell v. Benson, 285 U.S. 22, 46, 52 S. Ct. 285, 290, 76 L.Ed. 598.

The record contains testimony tending to show that Rennie was forty-eight years of age at the time of his collapse, and had started work for the Royal Indemnity Company in May, 1932, having been placed in charge of the claims adjustment department in Washington, which constituted several offices; at that time the cases of the office ran from about 100 to 110 a month, which it was not hard for him to handle; thereafter, however, other adjustment work was undertaken and the number of cases referred to him increased steadily as the business grew; the cases assigned to him finally increased from about 100 a month to about 250 a month...