Van Valin v. Industrial Commission

• Decision Date: 09 January 1962
• Citation: 112 N.W.2d 920,15 Wis.2d 362
• Parties: Sylvia VAN VALIN, Appellant, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION and Keystone Ferrule and Nut Co., et al., Respondens.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Page 920

112 N.W.2d 920

15 Wis.2d 362

Sylvia VAN VALIN, Appellant, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION and Keystone Ferrule and Nut Co., et

al., Respondens.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Jan. 9, 1962.

Workmen's Compensation. Sylvia Van Valin worked as a punch press operator for the Keystone Ferrule and Nut Company of Burlington, Wisconsin. On July 23, 1959, while operating a punch press, she became ill and was unable to continue working. It was discovered upon subsequent examination that she suffered from a herniated disc. Mrs. Van Valin made an application for workmen's compensation and at the hearing testified that she sustained her injury while pulling at a roll of steel which fed the punch press she was operating.

The examiner found that the applicant did not sustain an injury to her neck and arm in the course of and arising out of her employment on July 23, 1959; and that the applicant's complaints were due to other causes wholly unrelated to her employment. The commission affirmed the order of the examiner dismissing the application of Mrs. Van Valin for compensation. On review, the circuit court affirmed the order of the Industrial Commission. From this judgment, the plaintiff-employee, Sylvia Van Valin, appeals.

Charles Saggio, Milwaukee, for appellant.

John W. Reynolds, Atty. Gen., Mortimer Levitan, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondents.

DIETERICH, Justice.

The sole question for determination is whether there is any credible evidence to sustain the finding of the Industrial Commission that the appellant, Sylvia Van Valin, did not sustain an injury to her neck and arm in the course of and arising out of her employment.

It is an elementary principle of law that the applicant has the burden of proof in a workmen's compensation case, and if the evidence before the Industrial Commission is sufficient to raise in the mind of the commission a legitimate doubt as to the existence of facts necessary and essential to establish a claim for compensation, it becomes the duty of the commission to deny the application on the ground that the claimant did not sustain his burden of proof. Nielsen v. Industrial Comm. (1961), 14 Wis.2d 112, 109 N.W.2d 483; Fitz v. Industrial Comm. (1960), 10 Wis.2d 202, 102 N.W.2d 93, and Johnston v. Industrial Comm. (1957), 3 Wis.2d 173, 87 N.W.2d 822.

It is undisputed that the claimant, Sylvia Van Valin, suffered a herniation of an intervertebral disc. The question before the commission was whether or not the herniation occurred while Sylvia Van Valin was performing service growing out of and incidental to her employment, and as a result of some exertion, either usual or unusual, in the performance of her duties. Brown v. Industrial Comm. (1960), 9 Wis.2d 555, 101 N.W.2d 788. The burden of proof rested upon the applicant, Sylvia Van Valin, of convincing the commission to a reasonable certainty by a preponderance of the evidence that the hereination of the disc occurred during the course of her employment.

During the course of her employment by Keystone, Sylvia Van Valin, was required to operate several different types of machines, usually punch presses.

At one machine Sylvia Van Valin operated she was required to use pliers to hold light pieces of metal. Another machine she operated was a large punch press. The punch press which Sylvia Van Valin operated used band steel about five inches wide, from a 500 pound roll. This roll of steel rested in a cradle between two clamps some distance from the punch press. The cradle was equipped with rollers and when an electric switch was activated the cradle would feed steel from the cradle to the punch press. However if the clamps holding the roll were too tight the steel would not unroll at all; conversely, if the clamps were too loose the steel would unroll too fast and fall upon the floor. The switch was on the cradle and the operator of the punch press would activate the switch by pulling on a piece of twine or rope which had been fastened to the switch and extended to the punch press where the twine was also fastened.

Sylvia Van Valin testified that on July 23, 1959, the roll of steel was clamped too tightly and would not unwind. She loosened the clamps and then pulled on the twine to activate the rollers. When the steel refused to unroll she pulled harder whereupon she got a severe pain in the back of her neck, both arms, and back of her leg. She broke into a sweat and got chills and became nauseated. Sylvia Van Valin testified further that the foreman brought her a stool to sit on and later he transferred her to another press where the work was lighter. She was unable to continue working however and went home. She later testified that at the time she felt that she was sick and did not associate her illness with the fact that she pulled on the twine with all her strength.

The following morning, July 24, Sylvia Van Valin did not report for work, but went to her employer's office to explain her condition and that she was unable to work. She then saw the company...