Suedel v. North Dakota Workmen's Compensation Bureau

• Decision Date: 20 May 1974
• Docket Number: No. 8974,8974
• Citation: 218 N.W.2d 164
• Parties: Verdell J. SUEDEL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NORTH DAKOTA WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION BUREAU, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

Page 164

218 N.W.2d 164

Verdell J. SUEDEL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NORTH DAKOTA WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION BUREAU Defendant-Appellee.

Civ. No. 8974 Supreme Court of North Dakota.

May 20, 1974.

Rehearing Denied June 4, 1974.

Syllabus by the Court

1. Our review on appeal of findings of fact of the Workmen's Compensation Bureau is limited to determining whether there is substantial evidence to support the Bureau's findings of fact.

2. Since the Workmen's Compensation Bureau found that the rupture in the instant case was an aggravation of a preexisting aneurysm and was not brought on by the stress of the employment, and these findings are supported by substantial evidence, the judgment of the district court affirming the order of the Workmen's Compensation Bureau denying the claim is sustained.

Robert A. Alphson, Grand Forks, for plaintiff-appellant.

David L. Evans, Special Asst. Atty. Gen., Bismarck, for defendant-appellee.

ERICKSTAD, Chief Justice.

Verdell J. Suedel, now Johnson, filed an application with the North Dakota Workmen's Compensation Bureau for the payment of benefits in connection with the death of her husband, Robert A. Suedel, in which she alleged that Robert was employed at the time of the injury which caused his death by KTYN, KNOX, Grand Forks, North Dakota; that he received this injury while in the course of employment on the 16th day of November 1971; that said injury consisted of a reptured aneurysm which resulted from 'excessive pressure of work'; that this injury resulted in his death on the 25th day of November 1971.

The employer, KNOX Radio, Inc., filed a report with the Workmen's Compensation Bureau in conjunction with this claim to the effect that Mr. Suedel was employed by it as an announcer; that no accident occurred on the job; that, however, Mr. Suedel complained of headaches while on the job, and that on one day they became so severe that he asked to be relieved and was taken to the hospital by one of the staff.

Apparently it was on the 16th of November 1971 that Mr. Suedel was taken to the hospital, where he remained until he died on the 25th of November 1971. Subsequent to a hearing on March 7, 1973, the Workmen's Compensation Bureau, on May 7, 1973, issued its findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order denying the claim.

On May 24, 1973, Mrs. Johnson took an appeal from the order of the Workmen's Compensation Bureau, in which she contended that the Bureau erred in determining that the evidence failed to prove a causal relationship between the deceased's occupation and the ruptured aneurysm which resulted in his death.

The district court, on August 9, 1973, affirmed the order of the Workmen's Compensation Bureau, concluding that the Bureau's findings of fact were supported by the evidence and that its conclusions of law were in accordance with the findings and were supported by law. On appeal to this court Mrs. Johnson asserts that the trial court erred in so concluding.

In Haggart v. North Dakota Workmen's Compensation Bureau, 171 N.W.2d 104 (N.D.1969), we determined the scope of review in cases such as this. In Syllabus 2 we said:

'The trial de novo in the district court on the record made before an administrative agency and in the Supreme Court on an appeal from the district court in an administrative agency proceeding, as it relates to a determination of the facts, is limited to determining whether there is substantial evidence to support the administrative agency's findings of fact.' Haggart v. North Dakota Workmen's Compensation Bureau, Supra, 171 N.W.2d 104 at 105.

See also Ambroson v. North Dakota Workmen's Compensation Bureau, 210 N.W.2d 85 (N.D.1973), Syllabus 2.

Because of the importance of the findings and conclusions of the Bureau, we set them forth at this time.

'FINDINGS OF FACT

'I.

'That the deceased began experiencing severe headaches in July or August, 1971, and was hospitalized on November 16, 1971.

'II.

'That the deceased expired on November 25, 1971, and the cause of death was diagnosed as: 'Massive subarchnoid hemorrhage with intracerebral hematoma, right, secondary to ruptured aneurysm anomalous, right posterior communicating artery.'

'III.

'That evidence adduced indicates that a condition such as that experienced by the deceased could be the result of weakness in the vessel finally getting to the point of rupture.

'IV.

'That leaking aneurysms do not heal but get progressively worse.

'V.

'That the aneurysm could have been leaking for some time and could have been the cause of deceased's headaches starting in July.

'VI.

'That the pain from the headaches would tend to cause stress which could raise blood pressure which in turn could cause the eventual fatal rupture.

'VII.

'That the deceased normally worked a 10 hour day with one 18 hour day being worked on October 14, 1971, at the deceased's own request.

'VIII.

'That the deceased carried out his normal occupational duties during the time immediately prior to his hospitalization, and testimony indicates that the deceased enjoyed his work, was a better than average employee, and was to be promoted just prior to his death.

'IX.

'That enjoyable or pleasant experiences do not cause stress.

'X.

'That the testimony of Doctors Wallace, a psychologist, and Olmstead, an internist, was based on a hypothetical question and their knowledge of medical reports on file in this case, and not on any personal knowledge of the deceased's previous physical health nor his psychological state.

'XI.

'That the aneurysm itself was an underlying condition and it could have ruptured under any number of circumstances.

'Based upon the above Findings of Fact, the Commissioners of the North Dakota Workmen's Compensation Bureau make the following:

'CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

'I.

'That the evidence submitted to the Bureau fails to establish and prove a causal relationship between the deceased's ruptured aneurysm and subsequent death and his occupation.

'II.

'That the claimant has failed to prove that she is entitled to benefits under the North Dakota Workmen's Compensation Act as the result of the death of Robert A. Suedel on November 25, 1971.'

To determine whether there is substantial evidence to support the findings, we shall review the evidence submitted to the Bureau.

Mrs. Verdell Johnson, formerly Verdell Suedel, hereinafter referred to as Mrs. Suedel, testified that she and Robert Suedel were married on October 29, 1966, at Petersburg, North Dakota; that prior to Mr. Suedel's employment with KNOX the Suedels lived in Minneapolis; that they moved to her father's farm in May of 1971; that Mr. Suedel's health was fine in March and April of 1971; that prior to their marriage Mr. Suedel had been involved in an automobile accident and that two or three days before they were married he had been hospitalized in 'St. Mike's' Hospital; that prior to their marriage Mr. Suedel had surgery on his back; that in May and June of 1971 his health was fine; that while living with her parents at Petersburg Mr. Suedel commuted daily to Grand Forks in connection with his employment as a radio announcer for KNOX and its predecessor; that he commenced work with the radio station on the 1st of June 1971; that he worked extra hours on many days and worked all weekends; that in August she noticed that Mr. Suedel was slowly getting more rundown from working so many hours and driving back and forth; that sometime in September or October the station switched over to tapes and that this required a lot of extra work on Mr. Suedel's part in learning the new process; that in order to be at work on time he had to get up at 5:30 in the morning; that he drove 60-some miles each way; that two weeks before he became sick necessitating his hospitalization he had a terrific headache on his day off, and that on that occasion his headache was so bad that he couldn't see to drive an automobile; that Mr. Suedel said the work was really hectic; that towards the last when the station acquired the new computer for tapes, Mr. Suedel was always checking and rechecking to make sure it was right; that he became forgetful; that upon arriving home after a twelve-hour day he was exhausted; that he didn't complain about being in radio, because it was his lifetime dream; that he did say that the hours were long; that he would say that maybe after a good night's sleep things would be better; that towards the last he was more nervous than usual, although he didn't seem like the nervous type; that towards the last he was a completely different man.

Mr. Robert Hanson, the vice president, auditor, and accountant for KNOX, testified that he was not associated with Mr. Suedel or the company which employed Mr. Suedel until KNOX purchased the business on September 9, 1971; that the company from which KNOX purchased the station was Valley Broadcasting Company; that KNOX bought the assets of the corporation, not the corporation itself; that Mr. Suedel worked 262 hours during the month of October 1971; that Mr. Suedel was paid overtime after forty hours per week; that Mr. Suedel worked 128 3/4 hours for KNOX from November 1 through November 16, 1971; that Mr. Suedel worked 187 hours from September 9 through September 30 for KNOX; that during the time that Mr. Suedel was employed with KNOX the company had no program director, but that Mr. Lockhart managed that part of the station and was Mr. Suedel's supervisor.

In response to an inquiry as to what were Mr. Suedel's average work hours per day, Mr. Hanson testified:

'A Any one day? Well, it appears that generally his work schedule was ten hours a day. Now, there were some days--for instance, the September one, one day was a twelve-hour day and three days were six-hour days and one day was a nine-hour day, and in October there was a twelve, a nine and three-quarters and then five ten-hour days, a five-hour day, three more ten-hour days, a six-hour day and an eighteen-hour day, that being the largest one of all the time, and I...