Miller v. Department of Labor and Industries, 27722.

• Decision Date: 29 November 1939
• Docket Number: 27722.
• Citation: 1 Wn.2d 478,96 P.2d 579
• Parties: MILLER v. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIES.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

96 P.2d 579

1 Wn.2d 478

MILLER v. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIES.

No. 27722.

Supreme Court of Washington

November 29, 1939

Department 1.

Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Flora L. G Miller, claimant, opposed by the Department of Labor and Industries of the State of Washington. From the judgment of the Superior Court sustaining the Department of Labor and Industries in disallowing claim for pension, claimant appeals.

Affirmed.

Appeal from Superior Court, Cowlitz County; J. E. Stone, judge.

W. H Sibbald, of Kelso, for appellant.

G. W Hamilton and J. A. Kavaney, both of Olympia, for respondent.

MAIN, Justice.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the superior court sustaining the department of labor and industries in disallowing a widow's claim for pension.

Woodson Miller, the husband of the claimant, suffered an injury while engaged in extrahazardous work, for which he filed a claim for time loss. The claim was disallowed by the supervisor of industrial insurance, and he appealed to the joint board. While the claim was pending there, Mr. Miller died, the cause of death being nephritis, generally called Bright's disease. Flora L. G. Miller, the widow, was substituted as claimant. The claim was rejected by the department, and an appeal was taken to the superior court where the cause was tried to a jury, with the result that the jury found that the death was due to the accident. Judgment was entered upon the verdict, directing the department to find the time loss. From this judgment, no appeal was taken. Subsequently, the department found the time loss and paid the same to the estate of the deceased. While that cause was pending, the widow filed a claim for a pension. This claim was rejected by the department, and she appealed to the superior court where the case was tried, upon the departmental record, to the court without a jury, and the ruling of the department was sustained. From the judgment of the superior court, the widow appealed.

The question in this case is whether the injury which the husband sustained was caused by the accident or was the result of Bright's disease which the accident caused to be lighted up and made active. In support of this contention, the appellant called three doctors. One of them testified that there may have been a connection between the injury and the Bright's disease; another, that there probably was; and a third, that there could...