Mauchline v. State Ins. Fund

• Decision Date: 25 February 1924
• Docket Number: 26
• Citation: 279 Pa. 524,124 A. 168
• Parties: Mauchline v. State Insurance Fund, Appellant, et al
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

124 A. 168

279 Pa. 524

Mauchline v. State Insurance Fund, Appellant, et al

No. 26

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

February 25, 1924

February 4, 1924, Submitted

Appeal, No. 26, Oct. T., 1924, by State Insurance Fund, from judgment of C.P. Allegheny Co., July T., 1923, No. 2399 affirming decision of Workmen's Compensation Board, in case of C.A. Mauchline v. State Insurance Fund and Shinn Coal Co. Reversed.

Appeal from decision of Workmen's Compensation Board on hearing de novo. Before DOUGLASS, J.

The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.

Decision affirmed. State Insurance Fund appealed.

Error assigned was, inter alia, judgment, quoting record.

The judgment is reversed, and the record is remitted to the court below with directions to return it to the compensation authorities, so that they may proceed to adjudicate the case in accordance with this opinion.

W. C Archer, R. A. Applegate, and J. B. Eichenauer, of Rose &amp Eichenauer, for appellant.

Norval R. Daugherty, for appellee.

Before MOSCHZISKER, C.J., FRAZER, WALLING, SIMPSON, SADLER and SCHAFFER, JJ.

OPINION

MR. JUSTICE WALLING:

This is a workman's compensation case. The claimant, C. A. Mauchline, was and had been for some time employed as electrical engineer in the mine of the Shinn Coal Company, defendant, when, in February, 1922, he was forced to quit work because of ill health. He had been ailing for several months; at first his trouble seemed to be bronchitis but developed into a permanent condition of expansion of the lungs known as "emphysema," which prevents a normal expulsion of the air. Claimant's contention, sustained by the referee, compensation board and lower court, is that this condition resulted from an accident sustained in the course of his employment. The State Workmen's Insurance Fund, as insurance carrier, denied such contention and brought this appeal.

Claimant's employment required his presence in rooms where electric generators were in operation and gave off smoke and fumes, especially when overloaded. On August 24, 1921, plaintiff inhaled an unusual quantity of such smoke and fumes, while extinguishing a fire, and soon thereafter had pains in the chest, and shortness of breath, which condition gradually increased until total disability resulted at the end of six months. To connect the disease with the so-called accident required expert evidence, but that of the only medical witness warrants the conclusion that the inhaling of such vapors during a considerable period of time would be likely to cause emphysema, while the excessive inhaling thereof on a single occasion would not, although it might possibly do so. This is not sufficient to sustain the claim. "When, in cases of this class, expert testimony is relied on to show the connection between an alleged cause and a certain result, it is not enough for the doctors to say simply that the ailment in question might have resulted from the assigned cause, or that the one could have brought about the other; they must go further and testify at least that, taking into consideration all the attending data, it is their professional opinion the result in question most probably came from the cause alleged": from opinion by the Chief Justice in Fink v. Sheldon Axle and Spring Co., 270 Pa. 476, 479, which has been followed by numerous cases in this court and in the Superior Court.

To be an accident, within...