Wilson v. Holly Sugar Corporation

• Decision Date: 12 June 1934
• Docket Number: 1847
• Citation: 47 Wyo. 141,33 P.2d 253
• Parties: WILSON v. HOLLY SUGAR CORPORATION
• Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

33 P.2d 253

47 Wyo. 141

WILSON v. HOLLY SUGAR CORPORATION

No. 1847

Supreme Court of Wyoming

June 12, 1934

Appeal from the District Court, Goshen County; CYRUS O. BROWN Judge.

Application by Tom Wilson for an award under the Workmen's Compensation Law on account of injury resulting in hernia. From an award made in favor of the applicant, Holly Sugar Corporation, his employer, appeals.

Judgment reversed.

For the appellant, the cause was submitted on the brief of Reid &amp More of Torrington. There was no brief for respondent. The subject of hernia is covered by Section 124-122, R. S. 1931. Among other things, the section requires evidence of discoloration. The Workmen's Compensation Law was designed to afford relief for injuries, and the word "injury" as thus used is defined by sub-section "M" of Section 124-106-107, R. S. 1931. Congenital and slow developing types of hernia are diseases. The only hernia compensable under the Compensation Act is a traumatic hernia, --that is a hernia that is the result of sudden and unexpected application of force or strain. The Workmen's Compensation Law is not disability insurance. Madden v Company (Mass.) 11 N.E. 379. Compensation Acts in a majority of the states provide that claims for hernia must be supported by evidence that the hernia is of recent origin and was caused by accident. The medical profession recognizes hernia as a disease, a traumatic hernia being very exceptional. Hillhouse v. County (Idaho) 271 P. 459; McPhee v. Commission (Colo.) 185 P. 268; Commission v. Hoover Company (Colo.) 259 P. 509. The duty of an appellate court in a matter of this kind is well stated by the Supreme Court of Idaho in Larson v. Lumber Company, 297 P. 1087. It is submitted that the evidence in the present case fails to support the findings and order of award, and should be set aside and the proceedings dismissed.

KIMBALL, Chief Justice. BLUME and RINER, JJ., concur.

OPINION

KIMBALL, Chief Justice.

This is a case under the Workmen's Compensation Law. The employer appeals from an order allowing compensation for hernia, and contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the award.

The workman testified that he suffered a "rupture" on the right side following a strain while moving a beet piler. He did not at the time say anything about the injury to the men who were working with him, but two days later notified a Mr. Bracken who "seems to be boss out there." He continued to work after the accident until he was discharged three days later. The work after the accident was lighter. He did not testify that he asked for lighter work, but said that "all the work got lighter." Some three to five days after the accident he was examined by a physician who found a "right inguinal hernia, fully developed," and fitted a truss. The only evidence of pain at the time of the accident is the workman's answer, "yes," to the question: "Did you notice any pain when this rupture occurred?"

The physician who examined the workman testified that "there wasn't any discoloration." The workman testified:

"Q. Was there any discoloration of the skin at the point where this hernia occurred? A. I don't know what you would call a discoloration. Q. Any difference between the skin at that point and any other point on your body, was it all about the same color? A. At that place I couldn't very well see it, I couldn't say."

This is all the evidence on the question of the presence of discoloration following the accident.

Section 124-122, R. S. 1931, provides:

"A workman in order to be entitled to compensation for hernia must clearly prove:

1. That the hernia is of recent origin;

2. That its appearance was accompanied by pain, and discoloration and evidence of tearing of tissues were present;

3. That it was immediately preceded by...