Hoffman v. Krause

• Decision Date: 02 June 1950
• Docket Number: No. A--218,A--218
• Citation: 8 N.J.Super. 163,73 A.2d 610
• Parties: HOFFMAN v. KRAUSE.
• Court: New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division

Page 163

8 N.J.Super. 163

73 A.2d 610

HOFFMAN v. KRAUSE.

No. A--218.

Superior Court of New Jersey

Appellate Division.

Argued May 22, 1950.

Decided June 2, 1950.

Harry Tartalsky, Jersey City, argued the cause for the petitioner-appellant (O'Brien & Tartalsky, Jersey City, attorneys).

Seymour A. Smith, Hackensack, argued the cause for the respondent-respondent (Hein & Smith, Hackensack, attorneys).

Before Judges McGEEHAN, COLIE and EASTWOOD.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

EASTWOOD, J.A.D.

The only issue is whether petitioner's decedent suffered a compensable accident. Both the Workmen's Compensation Bureau and the Bergen County Court dismissed her petition. Petitioner appeals from the judgment of the County Court.

Decedent, Carl F. Hoffman, had been in the employ of respondent as a pharmacist for approximately two and one-half years. At the time of his death he was fifty-six and had suffered from high blood pressure and hypertension since 1941.

It is clear from the testimony that Hoffman, in addition to performing the usual duties of a pharmacist, also shared with his employer the work of putting away stock; carrying boxes and cases of merchandise almost daily from the store, where they had been delivered, either to the cellar or placing same on the shelves; cleaning up the store and other general duties. Boxes and cartons of merchandise were received almost daily, some of which were heavier than others. The lighter boxes and cartons weighed from 'half pounds and small ones up to thirty-five' pounds. The heavier ones weighed from '15 to 25, up to 50 pounds' and came in twice a week.

On April 28, 1948, the day of his death, 40 to 50 cartons containing empty bottles, ranging in weight from ten pounds to thirty-five or forty pounds, were received and placed on the sidewalk, immediately adjacent to the sidewalk cellar door. Similar shipments were received twice a year. The decedent lifted these cartons singly, walked one or two paces to the cellar door, placed the carton upon a board slide over the cellar steps, thus precipitating the carton into the cellar, where the employer, Mr. Krause, received it and carried it to its storage repository. There was an interval of approximately one minute between the time Mr. Krause received each carton, put it away, and then indicated to Hoffman that he was ready for another. Hoffman was engaged in this work for about fifteen or twenty minutes when he complained of a headache. During that time he had handled only the lighter cartons weighing 15 to 20 pounds each. Mr. Krause suggested that he go inside and rest. Shortly thereafter, he was found in the bathroom in a state of collapse on the floor and died about 4:30 p.m. the same day.

Petitioner contends that 'The injury did not occur in the performance of an everyday, routine task but in the performance of service in a twice-a-year, non-routine chore which imposed upon decedent an unusual strain and exertion causing the hemorrhage resulting in death.' On the contrary, respondent contends that 'the work being performed was of the usual routine every-day nature * * * there was no unusual strain or exertion.' Petitioner's expert medical witnesses testified that Hoffman's death was causally related to the unusual strain or effort in which he was engaged at the time of his collapse. On the contrary, respondent's medical experts testified that there was no such causal relationship and that his death was caused by arteriosclerosis and hypertension.

Dr. Henry R. Balze testified that he had been treating Hoffman since 1941 for high blood pressure and hypertension; that, in his opinion, his death was causally related to the accident, although he admitted that his conclusion that the decedent was subject to an unusual strain or effort at the time he was seized, was based upon a comparison with his duties as a pharmacist. Dr. R. Barton Opitz, who testified as a medical expert for petitioner, made a similar comparison. Dr. Istevan A. Gasper, who performed an autopsy upon decedent, testified that at the time of decedent's death, he was suffering from 'Arteriosclerosis,...