Walker v. Igoe Bros. Inc.
| Decision Date | 08 March 1943 |
| Citation | 30 A.2d 824 |
| Parties | WALKER v. IGOE BROS., INC. |
| Court | New Jersey Department of Labor-Workmen's Compensation Bureau |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Clarence Walker, claimant, opposed by Igoe Brothers, Inc., employer. On respondent's motion to dismiss the petition.
Order dismissing the petition.
David Roskein, of Newark, for petitioner.
George E. Meredith, of Trenton, for respondent.
MEDINETS, Deputy Commissioner.
A petition was filed and served in the above entitled matter praying for compensation under the provisions of R.S. 34:15-7 et seq., N.J.S.A. 34:15-7 et seq., and an answer was duly filed by the respondent. The matter came on for hearing before me in Newark at which time the petitioner was represented by David Roskein, Esq., and the respondent by George E. Meredith, Esq.
The case proceeded to trial and at the end of the respondent's case the petitioner asked leave to produce a further witness. Apparently some difficulty was encountered in locating this witness because the matter was carried along for a considerable length of time before I was advised that both sides had rested.
Because of this lapse of time I was reluctant to rely entirely on my own written notes in reaching my conclusions, and for that reason a complete transcript of the record was furnished me. I have carefully analyzed my notes in the case, and I have read the transcript of testimony of the various witnesses before reaching the conclusions hereinafter stated.
The testimony indicates that the petitioner on January 16, 1939, caught his right hand between the handle of a truck which he was pushing and a door which was opened by someone as he passed it.
Immediately following this occurrence the petitioner went to the first aid room, unassisted, where he reported to the first aid man. This man looked at the petitioner's hand, found nothing wrong with it, and although the petitioner claims that his arm was rubbed with some liquid, the first aid man testified that he did nothing at all for the petitioner because he observed no injury whatever.
After being in the first aid room for a few minutes the petitioner left and returned to his department. The petitioner testified that he rested behind a bundle of wire for about an hour after which he resumed his duties for the rest of the day, which was Monday, and continued at his work until regular quitting time on the succeeding days until Friday night.
The petitioner testified that he did not more lifting after this accident, but this statement was sharply contradicted by his fellow workers including the petitioner's son, who testified that his father had done his regular work as a floorman after the accident.
The petitioner received no medical treatment until about a week after this occurrence when Dr. Benjamin Fenichel was called to his home. At that time the doctor found the petitioner sitting up in a chair complainant of pain in the chest. It appears from other evidence in the case that the petitioner had pains in his chest and across his back and shoulders prior to the incident above described.
The only fact in the case which does not seem to be in serious dispute is the diagnosis. The doctors and experts appearing for both sides testified that the petitioner suffers from an aneurysm of the aorta which pre-existed the accident, and which was caused by a chronic syphilitic condition of long standing.
On this state of facts the respondent by its attorney moved for a dismissal of the petition on the grounds:
1. That the respondent had no knowledge or notice of an accident or injury by accident within ninety days after its alleged occurrence.
2. That the petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proving the type of accident on which he relies, in view of his total failure to corroborate the essential parts of his claim.
3. By the clear weight and quality of the medical testimony that the petitioner's condition was not shown to have been caused or aggravated by trauma.
The petitioner, in presenting his case, relied very strongly, if not entirely, on his own description of the type of accident that he suffered and the subjective complaints which he gave in his testimony. The petitioner's testimony was to the effect that he caught his entire hand, arm and chest between the truck handle and the door, and that in an attempt to extricate himself from this position he was required to jerk his arm violently, and that as a result of this experience he found himself in a state of severe stock, was scared to death and was required to rest for at least an hour before being able to resume any type of employment. However, this testimony finds no substantial corroboration in the testimony of any of the other witnesses in the case. I, therefore, find as a fact that the only injury suffered by the petitioner was a blow to the hand which left no marks of any kind such as a swelling, bruise or laceration, and I further find from the more credible testimony that no other part of the petitioner's body was involved in the accident. I find also from the more credible testimony in the case that the petitioner at the time of and following this occurrence was not in a state of shock.
The petitioner's doctors in reaching their conclusions quite naturally relied upon the description given them in the hypothetical question which included all of the serious complaints alleged by the petitioner, such as a striking of the chest and a straining of the arm and a condition of shock. Basing their opinions on this premise, which, as already indicated, I find to be false, the petitioner's doctors took the position that a pre-existing aneurysm was aggravated by the accident so as to...
To continue reading
Request your trial