Thomas v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co.

• Decision Date: 22 November 1961
• Docket Number: No. 9591,9591
• Citation: 135 So.2d 505
• Parties: Eliza THOMAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AETNA CASUALTY & SURETY CO. et al., Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US

Page 505

135 So.2d 505

Eliza THOMAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AETNA CASUALTY & SURETY CO. et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 9591.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit.

Nov. 22, 1961.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 27, 1961.

Certiorari Denied Feb. 2, 1962.

Smallenberger, Eatman & Tooke, Shreveport, for appellant.

Lunn, Irion, Switzer, Trichel & Johnson, Shreveport, for appellee.

Before HARDY, GLADNEY and AYRES, JJ.

HARDY, Judge.

This is a suit by plaintiff widow, seeking compensation benefits for the death of her husband allegedly resulting from an accident while engaged in the activities of his employment. From judgment rejecting her demands, plaintiff has appealed.

The facts involved in connection with the accident are practically without dispute. On May 5, 1959, the decedent, Houston Thomas, reported for the beginning of his day's work in the employ of one E. M. Ashley, as a carpenter, about 8:00 o'clock, A.M. En route to his job, in company with another employee, decedent had complained of pain in one of his arms. From about 8:00 to 9:00 A.M. decedent and two other employees alternated in the labor of loosening bricks by the use of a chisel and an eight-pound sledge hammer; upon being informed that Thomas had a sore arm, his employer, Ashley instructed him to desist from the work he was doing and assigned him to a lighter job of cleaning up and removing the bricks by means of a long-handled shovel. Following the lunch hour, Thomas continued his clean-up work for a brief period of time, and then engaged, for approximately thirty minutes, in whittling thumb-sized wooden pegs to be inserted in the brickwork. While so occupied in a standing position, Thomas collapsed, and his death followed almost instantaneously. It was further established that approximately eighteen months before his death Thomas had suffered an accident in a fall from a truck, and, while hospitalized as the result of injuries sustained in this accident, it was discovered that he was subject to a heart condition and high blood pressure. During this period of hospitalization and recovery from the accidental injuries sustained, Thomas was treated by Dr. C. S. Holt.

Plaintiff's claims for recovery rest upon the contentions that her husband's death was causally connected with the work in which he was engaged at the time, and the determination of this claim is the sole issue tendered by this appeal.

In questions of this nature the court must depend in great degree upon the testimony of expert medical witnesses in guiding it to a just conclusion. In response to hypothetical questions, it was the opinion of Dr. Dienst, testifying on behalf of plaintiff, that the exertion of the employment aggravated decedent's heart condition and hastened his death. Exactly the opposed opinion was expressed by Drs. Hall and Holt, the medical experts who testified on behalf of defendant.

There can be no dispute as to some of the general legal principles that govern cases of this nature. First, it is well established that compensation claims must be proved by a preponderance of the evidence. Second, our jurisprudence has now crystallized in the firm holding that an accidental injury which increases or aggravates a pre-existing condition is compensable.

With specific reference to heart conditions all of our appellate tribunals recognize and enforce the conclusion that compensation is due, whether or not the condition is pre-existing, when caused by the activities, exertions and other factors directly connected with the employment.

In Hemphill v. Tremont Lumber Co., 209 La. 885, 25 So.2d 625, 626, the opinion of Mr. Chief Justice Fournet, in considering the causal relationship between employment and death from a heart attack, observed that...