Indiana Bell Telephone Co. v. Haufe

• Decision Date: 08 October 1924
• Docket Number: 12,019
• Parties: INDIANA BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY v. HAUFE
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

144 N.E. 844

81 Ind.App. 660

INDIANA BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY v. HAUFE

No. 12,019

Court of Appeals of Indiana

October 8, 1924

From Industrial Board of Indiana.

Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Frances Haufe against the Indiana Bell Telephone Company for an award of death benefits because of the death of her son, Walter Haufe an employee. From an award for claimant, the defendant appeals.

Frances Haufe (the appellee here) filed an application for an award of benefits on the ground that she was a dependent of one Walter Haufe, deceased; that while in the service of the telephone company, he received a personal injury by accident and that his "death resulted from cancer of the esophagus, being the direct and proximate result of the injury." The Industrial Board found that she was partially dependent on her son and made an award of benefits for 300 weeks at the rate of $ 2.75 per week. The finding of facts includes the following:

"That sometime in the month of March or April of 1922, the said Walter Haufe received a personal injury by an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment; that said injury resulted in the death of said Walter Haufe on the 7th day of January, 1923."

The hearing before the full Board was on April 15, 1924. The undisputed testimony establishes the following facts: Walter Haufe died January 7, 1923. On December 21, 1922, he went to the office of a surgeon who examined him. The final diagnosis was a probable carcinoma of the esophagus. He was unable to swallow food. He complained of pain about the intercostal angle. The pain at that time was intermittent but afterward became constant. By the use of the X-Ray and bismuth, it was demonstrated that there was an opening through the wall of the esophagus and that his food passed through that opening into the thoracic cavity. By a surgical operation, an artificial opening was made through the walls of the abdomen and stomach and a tube inserted, through which he could be given nourishment. The autopsy, performed by Dr. Warvel about an hour and a half after his death, disclosed that the rubber tube which had been inserted in his stomach had become loosened, had slipped through the wall of the stomach into the peritoneal cavity, and was lying free upon the left lobe of the liver; that he had cancer of the esophagus; that an ulcer had eaten through the wall of the esophagus, causing an opening therein about three centimeters in length and about one centimeter in width. That opening appeared to have been due to the ulceration of a tubercular gland. Above the diaphragm, there was another gland two and one-half by one and one-half by one centimeter, which had not ulcerated through but was enlarged. There were other derangements which need not be detailed. The primary cause of death was peritonitis, due to leakage of the stomach contents through the artificial opening in the anterior wall of the stomach. The secondary cause of death was ulceration of the esophagus at the bend of the aorta. The cancer of the esophagus was at the left of the second rib.

Dr Warvel testified that there was no relation between the blow alleged to have been received on the front of the abdominal cavity, below the lower edge of the ribs, in March or April 1922, and the primary cause of death; that the cancer of the esophagus could not have been caused by such a blow and was not the result of such a blow.

Dr. Ricketts testified:

"I could not say the hit by the pole caused the cancer or I could not say it did not. I do not think the hit by the pole caused the cancer. I think the pre-disposition was there. * * * I do not with to be understood as saying that the blow on the chest was the cause of the cancer. I do not mean that. If a gland was affected, then intrathoracic pressure might light up some latent thing. I do not say it did. I do not believe anybody could say that; but I do not think they could say it didn't."

Frances Haufe, the appellee here and mother of the deceased workman, testified:

"During the year before Walter's death, he had not lived with me at any time nor I had not lived with him. He said to me that he was struck in the chest with a pole, two inches or something above the stomach. He said the pole hit him a little above the stomach. He said he was injured in April or March of 1922. * * * I asked him why he did not tell the company. But he never did."

Paul W Haufe testified:

"I am a brother of Walter Haufe, the deceased. I have knowledge of my brother receiving an injury in March or April, 1922. I did not see him receive it. I saw him right afterwards. I have no personal knowledge by eyesight as to how he received the injury. He said he was injured by a pole while he was loading poles in the Twenty-sixth street yards. He said it was an awful bad, slippery day, and a pole bounced off the wagon or slipped some way and struck him across here, and I saw a day or so afterwards where there was a big black and blue spot right in here. That is as far as my knowledge goes on that. I did not see it. As I understand, there were only two men present when it happened, and they were Mr. Udell and Mr. Russell. My brother worked at times off and on after the accident, on up until about October, when he took down to bed. I could not say the date when he told me; it was about a week after the accident.

Oscar Born testified:

"I lived with Walter Haufe in the spring of 1922. He came home from work and was telling me how he was hurt. He asked me if I could do anything for him. He showed me a black and blue spot. The spot was located, I judge, in the stomach, in the soft part of the abdomen. The spot was about the size of your hand, and was below the ribs. He said they were unloading poles from a wagon and, I believe, a pole fell and one end of the pole struck the ground, and from the vibration of the pole, it whipped back and struck him. He went back to work after receiving this alleged injury. He worked off and on, more or less. I do not know just how steady he worked, but he worked some after the accident but he always complained afterwards."

William C. Elliott ...