Peterson v. Ruberoid Co., 38322
| Decision Date | 19 January 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 38322,38322 |
| Citation | 261 Minn. 497,113 N.W.2d 85 |
| Parties | Maude PETERSON, Widow of Henry Peterson, deceased employe, Respondent, v. The RUBEROID COMPANY et al., Relators. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
Where, as in the instant case, there are permissible inferences which may be drawn from the evidence reasonably supporting the findings of the Industrial Commission, the findings must be sustained.
Mahoney & Mahoney, Minneapolis, for relators.
McLeod & Gilmore, Minneapolis, for respondent.
Writ of certiorari to review a decision of the Industrial Commission.
For several years prior to the date of the injury here involved, Henry Peterson was employed by The Ruberoid Company as a loader and unloader for hopper railroad cars containing slate granules used in roofing products. The hopper car is divided into two sections. In unloading the car a conveyor weighing approximately 225 pounds is placed under one of the hoppers and the hopper door opened, permitting the slate to flow onto a conveyor belt which, in turn, transports it to bins. The conveyor unit is wheeled into position underneath the car, and it is necessary to lift one end of it in order to fit it under the hopper. It takes from 10 to 15 minutes to put the unit in position. After the hopper is opened, the operator usually goes to the top of the bin, which is 30 feet high, to see that it does not run over. To get to the top of the bin he must either climb a ladder or go up a flight of stairs.
After one hopper is emptied, the operator climbs up the side of the car on a ladder, opens the top of the hopper, and gets down into it to sweep out any of the slate particles which might be left. This is required because slates of different color are carried in the hoppers. He then unloads the second section of the hopper car. In order to do this, it is necessary to move the car itself several feet to align the hopper opening over the conveyor unit. The car is moved by means of a car jack which is placed under one of its wheels. The operator then uses his weight to push the jack lever down and move the car forward. The positioning of the conveyor, the operation of the car jack, the climbing to the top of the bin and hopper car all require physical exertion. In unloading the second section of the hopper car, all of the movements described in deference to the first section are again duplicated.
On January 7, 1959, Peterson began work at 7 a.m. He was seen by other employees from time to time throughout the day although no one saw him actually working. At about 2 p.m. he was found lying on his back approximately 8 feet from one of the hopper cars gasping for breath. He died that same day from coronary thrombosis.
The decedent, who was 63 years of age, had become ill on December 26, 1958, and had remained in bed for two days. He returned to work on January 5, 1959, and had also worked on January 6. He appeared normal when he reported for work on January 7. The evidence was conflicting as to how many hopper cars had been unloaded by the decedent on the day in question. According to one witness, the conveyor unit had been placed under the car the previous day and the car partially unloaded. On January 7 the decedent finished unloading the section that he had started the previous day and then unloaded the second section. Another witness testified that two cars had been completely unloaded on January 7.
The commission affirmed the finding of the referee that the decedent sustained an injury arising out of and in the course of his employment and awarded compensation to his widow. Relators contend that there is no evidence to sustain a finding that the decedent's heart attack arose out of his employment.
Prior to the effective date of Minn.St. 176.021, it was necessary in cases of this type for the claimant to show some unusual exertion in order for the requirement of an 'accident' to be met. 1 Since the elimination of the word 'accident' by L.1953, c. 755, § 2, it is no longer necessary to prove that the strain or exertion which precipitated the harm was in itself unusual or beyond the routine of employment. 2 As relators point out, however, the fact that an employee dies from a heart attack at his usual place of employment and during his usual hours thereof is not sufficient, in itself, to impose coverage under the Workmen's Compensation Act. 3 The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dudovitz v. Shoppers City, Inc., 40771
...belief that the opinion of one doctor is more credible and more probable than the other.' In Petersonv. The Ruberiod Co., 261 Minn. 497, 500, 113 N.W.2d 85, 87, as in many other cases, we recognized the impossibility of determining beyond any question the precipitating cause of a coronary '......
-
Lawler v. Windmill Restaurant
...the employment and the disability." Kirnan v. Dakota Midland Hosp., 331 N.W.2d 72, 74 (S.D.1983) (quoting Peterson v. Ruberoid Company, 261 Minn. 497, 499, 113 N.W.2d 85, 86 (1962)). See also SDCL 62-1-1(2). The testimony of "professionals" is crucial in establishing this causal relationshi......
-
Podio v. American Colloid Co.
...prepared presentation. Usually the resolution of this question is for the medical experts and triers of the facts. Peterson v. Ruberoid Company, 261 Minn. 497, 113 N.W.2d 85; Blecatais v. Manchester Gas Company, 103 N.H. 542, 176 A.2d 711; Thornbrough Well Servicing Company v. Brown, 223 Mi......
-
Foss v. North Dakota Workmen's Compensation Bureau
...indispensable to prove this issue. Podio v. American Colloid Company, 83 S.D. 528, 162 N.W.2d 385, 388 (1968); Peterson v. Ruberoid Co., 261 Minn. 497, 113 N.W.2d 85, 87 (1962); Blecatsis v. Manchester Gas Co., 103 N.H. 542, 176 A.2d 711 In the instant case, the only opinion of a medical ex......