Salierno v. Micro Stamping Co.
| Decision Date | 15 February 1977 |
| Citation | 72 N.J. 205,370 A.2d 3 |
| Parties | Pasquale SALIERNO, Petitioner-Respondent, v. MICRO STAMPING CO., Respondent-Appellant. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
George J. Kenny, Newark, for respondent-appellant (McElroy, Connell, Foley & Geiser, Newark, attorneys).
Herman M. Wilson, Newark, for petitioner-respondent.
The judgment is affirmed substantially for the reasons set forth in Judge Larner's opinion for the Appellate Division.1
As to the issue of employment connection of the employee's activity in the negotiation of a labor contract as shop steward, see the related discussion in our decision this day of Mikkelsen v. N.L. Industries, 72 N.J. 209, 370 A.2d 5 (1977).
With reference to the matter of the causal relation between the myocardial infarction sustained by the petitioner in April 1971 and that of November 1971, and the citation in the partial dissent of Schiffres v. Kittatinny Lodge, Inc., 39 N.J. 139, 188 A.2d 1 (1963), it is to be noted that the latter decision stressed the substantial time period between the two infarctions there (3 1/2 years) and the different locations in the heate muscle infarcted. 39 N.J. at 147, 188 A.2d 1. In the instant case the time interval between infarctions was six months, and, according to the uncontradicted testimony of those physicians who addressed the point, which was given credence by the compensation judge, the same part of the myocardium was implicated both times. Here, too, two physicians furnished explicit physiological explanations for their conclusions of causal connection. Cf. 39 N.J. at 150, 188 A.2d 1. We cannot say the determination of causation by the compensation judge is not supported by sufficient credible evidence.
Judgment affirmed.
For affirmance: Justices MOUNTAIN, SULLIVAN and PASHMAN and Judge CONFORD--4.
While we join in the determination that petitioner's first myocardial infarction arose out of and in the course of his employment, we do not agree with the majority's conclusion that the second attack was causally related to the first. That result represents both bad medicine and bad law.
Although this Court ordinarily is disinclined--as it ought to be--to review concurrent factual findings of two tribunals (Cf. Phillips v. Quick-Snap Printing, 65 N.J. 216, 217--18, 314 A.2d 370 (dissenting opinion))--it is not at all clear that the Appellate Division took into account all the medical evidence; therefore, in the interest of justice we have made an independent study of the record, including the exhibits. See Aladits v. Simmons Co., 47 N.J. 115, 124, 219 A.2d 517 (1966).
That study reveals that petitioner, a 58-year-old diabetic with coronary artery disease and, according to his treating physician, 'a high-risk candidate for myocardial infarction,' sustained his initial heart attack on April 13, 1971. It was produced by an acute myocardial infarction in the inferior wall of the left ventricle, as demonstrated on electrocardiographs taken at East Orange General Hospital where petitioner was confined until May 4, 1971. In July he returned to full-time employment, continuing to work every day until the second attack in November. On Saturday, November 13, 1971, he developed 'angina' for which he took nitroglycerin 5 times 'with fair relief each time,' according to the hospital record. He did very little on Sunday, remaining home all day. While asleep that night, he suffered an attack around 2:00 a.m. and was again taken to the East Orange General Hospital. There he came under the care of the same physician who had treated him during his first confinement. At the conclusion of this second hospitalization the treating doctor's diagnosis was
As respects the issue on which we part company with the majority--the causal relationship between the first and second infarcts--its is well to observe at the outset that all the expert witnesses...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mikkelsen v. N. L. Industries
...by the fact that the meeting was specifically held to respond to the employer's offer of the contract. In Salierno v. Micro Stamping Co., 72 N.J. 205, 370 A.2d 3, decided this day, in affirming its judgment we approved the reasoning of the Appellate Division, 136 N.J.Super. 172, 176--177, 3......
-
Spatafore v. Yale University
...(compensation awarded where employee, acting as shop steward, suffered heart attack while negotiating labor contract), aff'd, 72 N.J. 205, 370 A.2d 3 (1977); Caterpillar Tractor Co. v. Shook, supra, at 507 (compensation awarded to union representative for injury sustained while traveling fr......
-
Watson v. Nassau Inn
...benefit does not necessarily exclude activities which primarily serve employee interests. Most recently, in Mikkelsen v. N.L. Industries, 72 N.J. 209, 370 A.2d 5 (1977), a unanimous Court held that attendance at a union meeting called for the purpose of ratifying or rejecting a proposed col......
-
New England Telephone Co. v. Ames
...supra 72 N.J. at 217, 370 A.2d at 9; Salierno v. Micro Stamping Co., 136 N.J.Super. 172, 177, 345 A.2d 342, 344 (1975), aff'd, 72 N.J. 205, 370 A.2d 3 (1977). Such consequences of negotiations are of benefit to the employer. Id.; accord Caterpillar Tractor Company v. Shook supra (grievance ......