Case Title: Reierson v. Land O'Lakes Creameries, Inc.

Citation: 177 N.W.2d 301

Docket Number: 

State: minnesota

Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

Date: 1970-05-15T00:00:00Z

Document:
177 N.W.2d 301 (1970) Oscar REIERSON, Respondent, v. LAND O'LAKES CREAMERIES, INC., et al., Relators. No. 41990. Supreme Court of Minnesota. May 15, 1970. *302 C. Douglas Allert, Minneapolis, for relators. Brink, Sobolik & Severson, Hallock, for respondent. Heard before KNUTSON, C. J., and NELSON, MURPHY, OTIS, and THEODORE B. KNUDSON, JJ. MURPHY, Justice. Certiorari to review a decision of the Workmen's Compensation Commission awarding disability benefits and medical expenses to respondent-employee, Oscar Reierson. Relator-employer, Land O' Lakes Creameries, Inc., and relator-insurer, The Travelers Insurance Company, ask for a reversal, contending that employee has not sustained his burden of proof that the disease of dermatomyositis arose out of and in the course of his employment. From the record it appears that Reierson, age 64 at the time of the hearing, began his employment with Land O'Lakes at their feed mill and elevator in Thief River Falls, Minnesota, in 1955. He performed general labor work of a seasonal variety which lasted from approximately March to October of each year. He owned and operated a 240-acre farm while working at the elevator. During the first week of September 1965, he was directed to clean the pit area below the elevator scales. The area is described in the commissioner's opinion as follows: A fellow employee gave this description of the area: Although Reierson had performed a similar task in previous years, he had never *303 worked on it more than one or two days at a time. After he had worked in the pit area for about a week or 10 days, he noticed that his hands and face had broken out in a rash. He consulted a local doctor who diagnosed the condition as contact dermatitis and prescribed for it. When the condition did not respond to treatment, he saw another area doctor who caused him to be hospitalized from January 10 to January 25, 1966, and for six days the following February because of his severe allergy. His condition became worse, and he began to suffer a general deterioration of his muscles. He encountered difficulty in walking and occasionally stumbled. He was unable to raise his arms above his head. By March 1, 1966, he had lost about 50 pounds and was so weak that he was unable to take care of himself. He entered a clinic at Fargo, North Dakota, and after examination was hospitalized from March 10 to April 13, 1966. His condition was diagnosed as dermatomyositis, a condition characterized by muscular weakness with a nonspecific eczematous skin eruption or urticaria. The condition is progressive, manifesting itself in swelling of parts of the body, muscular weakness, and skin changes. The patient is unable to perform normal tasks. Although his condition began to improve in August 1966, employee was unable to perform his farm chores at the time of the hearing. Relators produced a medical witness who testified that the cause of dermatomyositis is unknown. Both he and a neutral physician appointed by the commission agreed that any opinion relating the allergy to the employee's occupation would have to be based solely on speculation and conjecture. The commission, however, agreed with the referee that the testimony of the medical witnesses appearing for employee fairly established that the condition from which employee suffered was work-related. While the precise nature of the employee's disability is not fully explained in the record, there was medical testimony that the disability could be attributed to the effects of the exposure to the toxic and putrescent atmosphere in which he was required to work. Employee's condition after such exposure was manifested by skin eruptions, swelling of parts of his body, and muscular weakness which rendered him physically disabled for work. The physicians who treated relator concluded that his condition was not due to an inherent physical condition but that it was directly related to the exposure to conditions of his employment. One medical expert concluded: Another medical expert testified: We pointed out in Hiber v. City of St. Paul, 219 Minn. 87, 93, 16 N.W.2d 878, 881: While there is a conflict in the opinions of the opposing medical experts, we have in numerous cases pointed out that it is the peculiar prerogative of the commission to resolve such conflicts in medical testimony, and where its findings have reasonable support in the record, it is not the function of this court to decide whether the commission was correct in arriving at the facts. Martin v. Swift & Co., 269 Minn. 217, 130 N.W.2d 522; Golob v. Buckingham Hotel, 244 Minn. 301, 69 N.W.2d 636; and Hiber v. City of St. Paul, supra. A discussion of the claims of the parties with reference to whether employee's condition may be considered an occupational disability is not necessary to a disposition of this appeal. Respondent is allowed $250 attorneys' fees in this court. Affirmed.