Rennie's Case

• Decision Date: 12 June 1970
• Citation: 260 N.E.2d 186,357 Mass. 640
• Parties: Alfred A. RENNIE'S (dependent's) CASE.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

Page 186

260 N.E.2d 186

357 Mass. 640

Alfred A. RENNIE'S (dependent's) CASE.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

Argued April 7, 1970.

Decided June 12, 1970.

James C. Gahan, Jr., Boston, Mass., (Richard L. Little, with him), for the insurer.

Bernard T. Loughran, Belton, for claimant.

Before WILKINS, C.J., and SPALDING, CUTTER, REARDON and QUIRICO, JJ.

QUIRICO, Justice.

This is an appeal by an insurer under the Workmen's Compensation Act from a decree in the Superior Court ordering payment of compensation under G.L. c. 152, § 31, for an employee's death to his widow (claimant) in accordance with the decision of the reviewing board which adopted the findings and decision of the single member.

The insurer contends that the evidence at the hearing before the single member was insufficient to support his finding, affirmed by the reviewing board, that the employee's death was the result of an injury arising out of and in the course of his employment. It argues also that error was committed in allowing a hypothetical question put to an expert witness for the claimant.

The testimony and documentary evidence considered by the single member is included in the record before us. It may be summarized as follows: In May, 1960, Alfred A. Rennie (employee) was working for the Boston Gas Company (employer) as a Bserviceman. One of his jobs was to install and maintain gas meters in the buildings of the company's customers. At this time he was sixty-three years of age. On May 16, the day before his death, the employee worked the regular day shift from 8 A.M. to 5 P.M. He also worked that evening and returned home about 10 P.M. While he was having a cup of tea with his wife, he put his head in his arms on the table and said he had never felt so tired in his life. Shortly thereafter he went to bed but got up between 1:30 and 2 A.M. and went to the bathroom. His wife followed him and saw him clutching his two hands to his chest. The employee said he had indigestion so she gave him some alka seltzer. When they returned to bed, he complained of the room being too warm although two windows were open. He again went to the bathroom and sat, but shortly returned to bed and went to sleep. The next morning when he arose at his regular time of 6:15 A.M. his wife suggested he stay home. He refused, saying, 'No, I feel fine--why should I stay home.'

That day he received a work order directing him to go to 54--56 Lothrop Street, Newtonville, to install a five-light meter, in replacement of one removed on May 9. He was found apparently dead in the seat of the employer's truck at the address about 10:50 A.M. Upon being taken to the Newton-Wellesley Hospital he was pronounced dead on arrival. The cause of death listed on the death certificate was 'Acute Myocardial Infarction, Sudden death, Hypertension.'

Later that morning a company official went to that address and into the cellar of the house. He found a five-light meter, weighing between ten and twelve pounds, partially installed on the wall five and one-half feet from the floor. Such meters were carried on the service trucks for installation. Inspection revealed that a fire valve was missing from the partially installed meter and it was not found near the point of installation.

The employee had been receiving medical treatment and taking pills for high blood pressure and hypertension' since 1957.

Counsel for the claimant called and questioned Dr. Elliot L. Sagall, a specialist in internal medicine and cardiology. Counsel summarized the evidence described above and asked Dr. Sagall if he had 'an opinion whether or not there * * * (was) a causal relationship between the work activities of the employee on May 17, 1960 and his death'?

The doctor responded that the facts indicated 'that this employee, under prior treatment for hypertension, was awakened during the early morning of May 17, 1960 with symptoms consistent with an acute myocardial infarction, that he worked that morning despite having had the symptoms the previous night and that he was found dead in the truck within a few minutes after having performed physical effort, namely, carrying in a meter, installing it partially, and walking back to the truck, and the cause of death as listed in the death certificate is listed as acute myocardial infarction, sudden death, would in my opinion indicate that this physical effort that he performed in connection with his work within a few minutes preceding his death, strained an already weakened and damaged heart to precipitate an acute cardiac attack, therefore, his death was causally connected to that work activity.'

Counsel for the insurer cross-examined Dr. Sagall on the difference between myocardial infarction and coronary insufficiency, the symptoms of each, the symptoms of the deceased employee and their significance in determining the cause of death. On redirect examination Dr. Sagall testified that the opinion given by him in direct examination was not changed; and further that either coronary insufficiency or myocardial infarction can be aggravated by any physical activity.

Dr. Thomas Connelly, a specialist in internal medicine and cardiology was called by the insurer. He testified that the symptoms apparent on the evening of May 16, and in the early hours of May 17, were indicative of 'a bout of acute coronary insufficiency, symptomatic of the fact that his underlying coronary circulation was nearing a critical stage.' He expressed the opinion that the employee's death was caused by acute coronary insufficiency. He concluded that the injury and resulting death were not related to the morning's work.

The single member summarized the evidence concerning the employee's activity on May 16 and 17 and his symptomatology as well as Dr. Sagall's testimony and concluded, '(T)his employe sustained either an acute attack of coronary insufficiency or an infarction in the early hours of the morning that he died, and * * * the additional stress of his work in installing the meter on the morning of May 17, 1960 involved physical exertion superimposed upon an already weakened heart and bears direct causal relation to his death which ensued shortly thereafter * * *.' On the basis of this factual conclusion, he found further that the death was the result of an injury arising out of and in the course of his...