Thomas v. State Workmen's Ins. Fund

• Decision Date: 14 April 1924
• Docket Number: 171
• Parties: Thomas, Appellant, v. State Workmen's Insurance Fund et al
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

124 A. 499

280 Pa. 331

Thomas, Appellant, v. State Workmen's Insurance Fund et al

No. 171

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

April 14, 1924

Argued February 26, 1924

Appeal, No. 171, Jan. T., 1924, by plaintiff, from judgment of C.P. Wyoming Co., June T., 1923, No. 20, affirming decision of Workmen's Compensation Board, refusing award in case of Anna Thomas v. State Workmen's Insurance Fund and Awixa Corporation. Affirmed.

Appeal from decision of Workmen's Compensation Board which affirmed finding of referee, refusing award. Before TERRY P.J.

The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.

Decision affirmed. Claimant appealed.

Error assigned was, inter alia, decree, quoting record.

The judgment is affirmed.

Roger J. Dever, with him James S. Fields, for appellant. -- An injury brought on by unusual heat and overexertion is an accident which will support compensation, even though no unusual exertion took place at the precise moment when the accident happened: Wolford v. Geisel M. & S. Co., 262 Pa. 454; Lane v. Horn & Hardart Baking Co., 261 Pa. 329.

Samuel I. Spyker, with him George W. Woodruff, Attorney General, for appellees, cited: Flucker v. Steel Co., 263 Pa. 113; McCauley v. Woolen Co., 261 Pa. 312.

Before MOSCHZISKER, C.J., FRAZER, WALLING, KEPHART, SADLER and SCHAFFER, JJ.

OPINION

MR. JUSTICE SADLER:

Lester L. Thomas was employed as a carpenter to aid in the building of a highway bridge, and, on October 22, 1921, helped in the handling of large stones required in the construction work. Nineteen days later he died of heart disease, and a claim for an allowance was made by his widow before the Workmen's Compensation Board, on the ground that his collapse was due to the strain which he suffered in moving the heavy material during the course of his employment. His health prior to the date mentioned was fair, and the contention is made that the unusual service in which he assisted caused his breakdown.

The referee, to whom the case was submitted, found the employee had not "suffered violence to the physical structure of his body while in the course of employment," and refused to make an award. An appeal resulted in an order directing that the claim be reconsidered, and further testimony taken. This was done, but ultimately the same conclusion was reached, and the findings were approved by the board and the court of common pleas. It is insisted that the evidence justified a different determination, and that there was some medical testimony which indicated the physical effort demanded by the work performed hastened the death, upon which the claim is based. Had the referee and board so found, and granted compensation, the judgment might be sustained (Watkins v. Pittsburgh Coal Co., 278 Pa. 463; Hornetz v. P. & R.C. & I. Co., 277 Pa. 40; Wolford v. Geisel M. & S. Co., 262 Pa. 454), since one of the witnesses testified that the carrying of the weighty load probably injured the already weakened heart. (See Fink v. Sheldon Axle & Spring Co., 270 Pa. 476). There was evidence, however, to the contrary, and it was accepted as true. It is established definitely that the revisory powers of this court are limited to a review of the testimony of record, with the sole purpose of ascertaining whether evidence appears which justifies a finding made, and, if so, whether the law has been properly applied: Flucker v Carnegie Co., 263 Pa. 113; Kuca v. Lehigh Valley Coal Co., 268 Pa. 163; Stahl v. Watson Coal Co., 268 Pa. 452; Tracey v. Phila. & Reading C....