Industrial Com'n v. Corwin Hosp.

• Decision Date: 06 October 1952
• Docket Number: No. 16802,16802
• Citation: 250 P.2d 135,126 Colo. 358
• Parties: INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al. v. CORWIN HOSPITAL et al.
• Court: Colorado Supreme Court

Page 135

250 P.2d 135

126 Colo. 358

INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al. v. CORWIN HOSPITAL et al.

No. 16802.

Supreme Court of Colorado, en Banc.

Oct. 6, 1952.

Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., H. Lawrence Hinkley, Deputy Atty. Gen., Peter L. Dye, Asst. Atty. Gen., for plaintiff in error Industrial Commission.

McComb & Zarlengo, Denver, for defendants in error.

MOORE, Justice.

This action originated before the Industrial Commission with the filing, by plaintiff in error, of a claim for workmen's compensation against Corwin Hospital, Sisters of Charity and the insurance carrier. Following hearings before the referee, the Industrial Commission approved his findings and awarded compensation to claimant. The employer and insurance carrier brought this action in the district court of the City and County of Denver for a review of the proceedings before the commission, and prayed for an order vacating the award. The district court, upon review of the record, found the issues in favor of plaintiffs Corwin Hospital, Sisters of Charity and Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company, and entered judgment setting aside the award of the Industrial Commission. Claimant and the commission bring the case here for review by writ of error.

We think the pertinent facts are sufficiently set forth in the findings of the referee, from which we quote the following:

'On October 25, 1949 claimant was stricken with polio. At the time that the disease appeared she was a nurse in the polio ward at Corwin Hospital, operated by the Sisters of Charity. The polio ward was established as an isolation ward in the month of August, and the claimant was continuously on duty in that ward until she came down with the disease. During that period, the ward was operating short-handed. The nurses were frequently required to put in extra hours and were materially overworked. During that period the claimant made but infrequent trips to town, and when she attended a motion picture show drove to a drive-in theatre with a friend rather than to expose patrons of a conventional type theatre. The doctors are agreed that the exact cause of polio is not known, but it is conceded to be epidemic in nature. The means of transmission of this disease is likewise not known.

'However, during the period that claimant was employed in the polio ward, two of the four nurses so employed contracted the disease. Dr. Boyer, in answer to a question as to whether there were any published figures which would show a relative incidence of polio among nurses as compared with other young women of their age in other pursuits testified, 'I don't know. I have never seen such figures, though it is generally known and generally recognized by the medical profession that there is very much greater danger of polio among nurses and among nurses who are treating polio patients than average.' Upon being asked if he had any knowledge of the situation at the hospital or of the claimant's activities that he felt might be a factor to be considered in the case he testified, 'No, I think not, Mr. Referee. I think it is of definite importance, though we don't know the mode of transmission of this disease, I think it is of definite importance that the rate of incidence is higher among nurses, doctors, physiotherapists, who are treating and coming in contact with these patients.'

'The Referee, therefore, finds that the claimant herein contracted polio as a result of exposure while in the course of her duty and that the contracting of this disease constitutes an accident arising out of and in the course of her employment. Temporary total disability has not terminated and permanent disability cannot at this time be determined. Claimant's wages were $207.00 per mont.'

Question to be Determined

Was there competent evidence presented before the referee upon which findings could be made that claimant suffered a compensable accident arising out of and in the course of her employment?

The question is answered in the affirmative. In determining whether a disability is 'accidentally sustained' within the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Act, '35 C.S.A. c. 97, § 280 et seq., we have said that "nothing more is required than that the harm that the plaintiff has sustained shall be unexpected." Carroll v. Industrial Commission, 69 Colo. 473, 195 P. 1097, 1098, 19 A.L.R. 107; 'To constitute an accidental injury, it is not necessary that there should be anything extraordinary occurring in or about the work itself, such as slipping, or falling, or being hit.' Central Surety & Ins. Corp. v. Industrial Commission, 84 Colo. 481, 271 P. 617, 621. To like effect are the decisions of this court in Keating v. Industrial Commission, 105 Colo. 155, 95 P.2d 821; Gates v. Central City Opera House Ass'n, 107 Colo. 93, 108 P.2d 880; and Industrial Commission v. La Foret Camps, Colo., 245 P.2d 459.

We have held repeatedly that the Workmen's Compensation Act is highly remedial and beneficient in purpose, and should be given a liberal construction so as to accomplish the evident intent and purpose of the Act. Denielson v. Industrial Commission, 96 Colo. 522, 44 P.2d 1011; L. B. Cole Produce Co. v. Industrial Commission, 123 Colo. 278, 228 P.2d 808.

It is strenuously argued by counsel for the employer and the insurance company that there was no competent evidence offered before the Industrial Commission tending to establish any disability resulting from an accident arising out of...