Indus. Comm. v. Franken
| Decision Date | 01 March 1933 |
| Docket Number | 23222 |
| Citation | 126 Ohio St. 299,185 N.E. 199 |
| Parties | Industrial Commission Of Ohio v. Franken. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Workmen's compensation -- Injury and disease distinguished -- Occupational disease compensable, when -- Only accidental injuries compensable.
1. The Constitution and statutes of this state make a clear distinction between injury and disease. The only diseases which are compensable are certain occupational diseases enumerated by the statute.
2. The term "injury" as used in the Workmen's Compensation Law of Ohio comprehends only such injuries as are accidental in their origin and cause.
The facts are stated in the opinion.
Mr Gilbert Bettman, attorney general, Mr. Donald J. Hoskins prosecuting attorney, Mr. R. R. Zurmehly and Mr. J. E Bowman, for plaintiff in error.
Mr. T J. Duffy, for defendant in error.
This action was instituted in the court of common pleas of Franklin county, Ohio, as an appeal from the action of the Industrial Commission of the state denying to Mary Franken, widow of Henry Franken, participation in the workmen's compensation fund by reason of the death of Henry Franken, which it was claimed resulted from an injury sustained by him on or about April 3, 1930. The trial in the court of common pleas resulted in a verdict in favor of plaintiff and that was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Upon motion the record was ordered certified to this court.
The single question presented in this case is whether the facts disclosed by the record warrant an award under the Workmen's Compensation Act (Section 1465-37 et seq., General Code).
The record discloses that Franken had been in the employ of the Ohio State Stove Company for nineteen years as a "pressman;" his particular task being to handle dies, which weighed from twenty-five to four hundred pounds, an apparatus being provided and used to handle those which were too heavy to be lifted otherwise. No "accident" occurred, as that term is ordinarily understood and applied. Some time during the day above mentioned Franken made some complaint about not feeling well and quit work and went home. He died twenty-five days later, his trouble being diagnosed as heart failure. At the time he quit work he complained of indigestion. The record discloses that upon arriving home he had pains through his chest, and the doctor later stated that he was suffering from an acute dilation of the heart. There is no evidence whatever of any extraordinary or unusual happening in and about Franken's work preceding his illness. There is some evidence that on the day in question he had handled a die weighing three hundred pounds, but it does not appear that handling a die of that weight with the apparatus provided was any more strenuous than lifting by hand a die weighing thirty-five or forty pounds. The physician testified that in his opinion the heart condition described was caused by "some severe muscular strain."
The right of recovery in any case such as this cannot be determined upon the theory that the work in which the employe was engaged was...
To continue reading
Request your trial