Shadbolt v. Department of Labor and Industries of Washington

• Decision Date: 06 October 1922
• Docket Number: 17253.
• Citation: 121 Wash. 409,209 P. 683
• Parties: SHADBOLT v. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIES OF WASHINGTON.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

209 P. 683

121 Wash. 409

SHADBOLT v. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIES OF WASHINGTON.

No. 17253.

Supreme Court of Washington

October 6, 1922

Department 2.

Appeal from Superior Court, Thurston County; John M. Wilson, Judge.

Claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Alonzo Shadbolt before the Department of Labor and Industries of Washington to recover compensation for injuries. After rejection of the claim by the Department of Labor and Industries claimant's right to compensation was sustained on appeal to the Superior Court, and the Department appeals. Affirmed.

Lindsay L. Thompson and John H. Dunbar, both of Olympia, for appellant.

Geo. F Yantis, of Olympia, for respondent.

MAIN J.

This cause arose out of a claim filed with and later rejected by the Department of Labor and Industries. After the rejection the claimant appealed to the Superior Court, and trial there resulted in findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a judgment sustaining the claimant's right to compensation. From this judgment the Department of Labor and Industries appeals.

Alonzo Shadbolt, the claimant and respondent, was employed about May 1, 1921, as a shingle sawyer at a shingle mill in the city of Olympia. On May 11th he went to work as usual at about 5:30 p. m. (he being employed on the night shift). At this time he felt well and normal. The work which he was doing involved transferring blocks weighing from 50 to 150 pounds from a table or platform to a carrier which conveyed them to the saw. The blocks were transferred from the right side to the left. In making this transfer, owing to their heavy weight, he rested them on his right side in such a manner that would bring pressure upon the region of the appendix. At about 11 o'clock p. m., on the night of the 11th, the respondent felt a pain in the abdomen and was affected by nausea and vomiting. He told a fellow employee of his condition and was disposed at that time to quit work and go home. At this time the timber which they were handling was getting smaller and poorer, and therefore less profitable to the men handling it, and the other employee remarked to him that he must be getting 'sick of the timber,' when he complained. He worked to the end of his shift, which was 2:15 a. m. After finishing his shift, he returned home very ill. Later in the day he called a physician, and between 10 and 11 o'clock on that night was operated on for appendicitis. At the time the operation occurred, the appendix was ruptured, and he was affected with general peritonitis. After a 'rather stormy time,' as stated by one of the physicians, he made a complete recovery. As already appears, he filed a claim with the Department of Labor and Industries, which was rejected.

The sole question is whether, under the facts stated and as will be further detailed, the claimant had suffered an injury such as is contemplated by chapter 182, § 2, by section 6604-3, Rem. & Bal. Code, as amended by section 2 of [121 Wash. 411] chapter 182 of the Laws of 1921, where the word 'injury' is defined as follows:

'The words 'injury' or 'injured' as used in this act refer only to an injury resulting from some fortuitous event as distinguished from the contraction of disease.'

In Zappala v. Industrial Insurance Commission, 82 Wash 314, 144 P. 54, L. R. A. 1916A, 295, it was held that a claimant who sustained a rupture while engaged in moving a heavily loaded truck, when he exerted all his strength and gave a jerk, was a 'fortuitous event' within the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Act, granting compensation for injuries received from 'some fortuitous event...