Karlson v. Rosenfeld

• Decision Date: 10 March 1927
• Citation: 137 A. 95
• Parties: KARLSON v. ROSENFELD.
• Court: New Jersey Court of Common Pleas

137 A. 95

KARLSON

v. ROSENFELD.

Court of Common Pleas of New Jersey. Monmouth County.

March 10, 1927.

Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by John Karlson, claimant, opposed by William I. Rosenfeld, employer. From the determination of facts and rule for final judgment entered by direction of the Workmen's Compensation Bureau, the employer appeals. Judgment for employer.

Emile Neblo, of Jersey City, for appellant.

Ward Kremer, of Asbury Park, for appellee.

STEINBACH, P. J. This is an appeal from the determination of facts and rule for final judgment entered by direction of the Workmen's Compensation Bureau (Deputy Commissioner William E. Stubbs). This matter was heard on October 14, 1926, before the commissioner.

The petitioner, John Karlson, was employed by William I. Rosenfeld, the respondent, and performing his duties as such employee, on March 9, 1926. During that day, the petitioner performed usual labors, part of which was putting canna roots in a frame. At 5 o'clock, when the petitioner washed his hands, he found a cut on his finger. From the testimony of the only physician whose testimony was given in the case, it appears that the second finger (the finger upon which the cut appeared) was amputated because of infection. The petitioner says he did not have the cut at noon and on his examination stated that he was sure it was cut in the afternoon, but inasmuch as he did not feel the cut before the evening, he did not know the time nor the occupation he was engaged in at the time he received the cut.

On page 5 of the testimony, the petitioner says:

"I am sure I got it because I didn't feel it before the evening. I washed my hands with soap and water.

"Q. You saw it when you washed your hands with soap and water? A. Yes. * * *

"Q. What time was that? A. Five o'clock."

On page 10 the testimony is:

"Q. You don't know just what caused the scratch, do you? A. I could not tell. I got it from the soil."

He then goes on with testimony which clearly shows that he does not know positively that he got it from the soil. On page 9 the testimony is:

"Q. Soon after 7 o'clock you started to plant these roots? A. No, sir; about 11 o'clock.

"Q. It took you about three hours to do that? A. Yes.

"Q. You finished that work and went about doing other work? A. Doing the evening chores.

"Q. After you finished planting the canna roots, you went about your other work? A. Yes."

Then again on page 10 of the testimony:

"Q. You went home to your home? A. My home was right there.

"Q. You left your work and walked over, to your house? A. Yes.

"Q. And began washing your hands, and you noticed this small scratch on your knuckle? A. Yes, sir."

There seems to be sufficient evidence from which an inference may be rightfully drawn that the injury to the hand and the amputation of tbe finger was caused by infection through a scratch, of which the petitioner complained. The question that causes some doubt is as to whether the scratch was a result of an accident arising out of and in the course of the petitioner's employment. To find so, "* * * it was essential that there should have been some fact or circumstance established to support such finding." Schmoll v. Weisbrod, etc., 89 N. J. Law, 152, 97 A. page 724.

What was the cause of the accident? I have read the testimony over several times, and I must say that I cannot find any fact or circumstance indicating when the scratch was obtained or by what substance or implement the scratch was made. From the petitioner's testimony there may be a fair inference that the scratch was obtained some time between noon, when the petitioner went back to work (during part of which time he was putting canna plants in frames), and when he washed his hands at 5 o'clock or shortly thereafter at the house on his employer's premises, where he resided. How it was obtained I am, and petitioner...