Kallgren v. C. W. Lundquist Co.

• Decision Date: 28 October 1927
• Docket Number: No. 26279.,26279.
• Parties: KALLGREN v. C. W. LUNDQUIST CO. et al.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

172 Minn. 489

216 N.W. 241

KALLGREN

v.C. W. LUNDQUIST CO. et al.

No. 26279.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Oct. 28, 1927.

Appeal from Industrial Commission.

Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Charles J. Kallgren, claimant, opposed by the C. W. Lundquist Company, employer, and the London & Lancaster Indemnity Company, insurer. To review an order of the Industrial Commission denying compensation, the claimant brings certiorari. Remanded with directions.

Syllabus by the Court

Sunstroke may constitute an ‘accident’ within the Workmen's Compensation Act (Gen. St. 1923, §§ 4261-4337).

Application to the Industrial Commission for a rehearing rests in its discretion.

Apoplexy in an employee, suffering from arteriosclerosis, due in part to an increased blood pressure caused from heavy lifting in his work, is an ‘accident’ within the Workmen's Compensation Act (Gen. St. 1923, §§ 4261-4337).

The Industrial Commission is not bound by rules of evidence nor by technical or formal rules of pleading or procedure. Wm. M. Nash, C. L. Nichols, R. W. Peterson, and G. H. Smith, all of Minneapolis, for relator.

Ernest E. Watson, of Minneapolis, for respondents.

WILSON, C. J.

Certiorari to the Industrial Commission to review an order denying compensation.

On July 8, 1926, employee, a carpenter, was working for employer respondent on the third floor of an open building under construction in Minneapolis. The day was hot and cloudy; the temperature being 82 and the humidity 56. There was a south wind. The second floor was already constructed, and the work involved the construction of the third floor. Relator was engaged in placing a beam when he collapsed and was taken to a hospital.

The doctors called by the employee diagnosed the attack as cerebral hemorrhage due to heat prostration, resulting in partial paralysis. The doctors called by respondents attributed the condition to arteriosclerosis ending in a stroke of apoplexy. Disability is not disputed. If the cause thereof is sunstroke or heat stroke due to conditions to which the employment subjects the employee, it may constitute an accident within the Compensation Act (Gen. St. 1923, §§ 4261-4337). State ex rel. Rau v. District Court, 138 Minn. 250, 164 N. W. 916, L. R. A. 1918F, 918; Glassman v. Radke, 152 Minn. 253, 188 N. W. 286;Young v. Melrose Granite Co., 152 Minn. 512, 189 N. W. 426, 29 A. L. R. 506;Babich v. Oliver Iron Mining Co., 157 Minn. 122, 195 N. W. 784,202 N. W. 904. See Klika v. Ind. School Dist., 161 Minn. 461, 202 N. W. 30;Young v. Western Furniture Co., 101 Neb. 696, 164 N. W. 712, L. R. A. 1918B, 1001. The claim petition is based upon a sunstroke. Upon this vital issue there was conflicting testimony, and the commission could have found either way. Its finding must therefore stand. Walker v. Minn. Steel Co., 167 Minn. 475, 209 N. W. 635;Brokmeier v. Lamb, 170 Minn. 143, 212 N. W. 187.

Just prior to the collapse, the employee had helped another man carry a heavy beam up ladders from the second floor to be placed in the third floor. The testimony as to this is meager. The doctors for respondents, however, disclosed this in their statement of the historical facts which they had learned from the employee. Upon cross-examination one of these doctors testified:

‘The fact that the man was carrying a heavy beam, I would say, had some relation to his apoplexy. If he had high blood pressure, I believe carrying a heavy beam would raise it somewhat higher. * * * If a man had arteriosclerosis and high blood pressure, and he lifted a heavy beam. I should think that lifting that weight would in some way, might in some way, contribute to his apoplexy, because it would certainly raise the blood pressure somewhat.’

This doctor says that the sclerotic condition was the chief factor. This testimony was given at the very last of the hearing, and is found on the last three pages of the transcript.

The referee filed his decision December 29, 1926. An appeal to the Industrial Commission was made on January 21, 1927. On March 21, 1927, counsel for employee made application for a rehearing for the purpose of putting in additional testimony. The applicant stated that counsel had never been informed of plaintiff's lifting the heavy beam just before collapsing nor that employee had arteriosclerosis until the hearing, and it was stated that prior to the hearing the employee was in such mental condition that it was very difficult to get any information from him, and that he answered questions slowly, and volunteered very little...