Opinion ID: 1762482
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Cause of injury.

Text: Appellants contend that the applicant did not sustain an accidental injury. An accident under the Workmen's Compensation Act is a fortuitous event, unexpected and unforeseen by the injured person. Beck v. Hamann (1953), 263 Wis. 131, 56 N. W. 2d 837. An accidental injury is one that results from a definite mishap. Andrzeczak v. Industrial Comm. (1945), 248 Wis. 12, 20 N. W. 2d 551. Mrs. Staffin testified at the hearing that she suffered the injury when she reached for a box on a shelf seven or eight feet off of the floor. She stated she could not reach the box and attempted to get it by jumping up and grabbing for it; the top of the box was wedged in the shelf, her hand slipped and she fell backward, and struck her shoulder on the shelf behind her. She stated she felt pain immediately when her shoulder struck the shelf. Her treating physician made an entry in her hospital record that the applicant's shoulder dislocated when she lifted her arm above her head. According to a statement given by Mrs. Staffin to a representative for Semons'  compensation carrier, the incident occurred when she was trying to reach the box on the shelf by standing on her tiptoes; she reached with her right arm and had her left arm on a shelf above the level of her shoulder; after pulling the box out a short way she came down on her heels, and as she came down on her heels she went forward to grab with her left arm, causing it to become dislocated at the shoulder. The findings of the examiner are based upon the applicant's testimony at the hearing, and are as follows: That on September 30, 1967, the applicant was employed at the Semons Department Store; that on said date she went to her employer's storeroom and attempted to remove a box of shirts from a high shelf; that applicant could not reach said shirts, and attempted to get them by jumping up and grabbing for said box; that applicant was unsuccessful in her attempt to grab said box of shirts, and that as she came down to the floor she fell backwards and hit her left shoulder on a shelf behind her; that as a result of said incident, applicant again dislocated her left shoulder; ... Appellants argue that the injury occurred when the applicant simply reached up with her arm, and that in light of her prior difficulties in reaching, the dislocation was not fortuitous or unexpected. The problem with the appellants' argument is that this is not how the examiner found the accident occurred, and there is credible evidence to support the findings. The question is not whether there is credible evidence in the record to sustain a finding the commission did not make, but whether there is any credible evidence to sustain the finding the commission did make. Unruh v. Industrial Comm. (1959), 8 Wis. 2d 394, 398, 99 N. W. 2d 182. The applicant has the burden of proving her case by credible evidence such that the finding of the department will rest on that evidence. R. T. Madden, Inc. v. ILHR Department (1969), 43 Wis. 2d 528, 169 N. W. 2d 73. It is the duty of the department to deny compensation  where the evidence is sufficient to raise a legitimate doubt as to the facts necessary to support the claim. Reich v. ILHR Department (1968), 40 Wis. 2d 244, 161 N. W. 2d 878. This court, on review, has the duty to view the evidence relied upon by the department to determine whether that evidence is sufficient to justify the finding made by the department. If there is credible evidence, which when construed most favorably to the finding made by the department, would justify men of ordinary reason and fairness in making that finding, the evidence is sufficient to support the findings of the department. R. T. Madden, Inc. v. ILHR Department, supra . The examiner in this case found that the injury was the result of a mishap, and his findings are supported by credible evidence.