Court Opinion

ID: 9567321
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 19:52:15.902191+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:00:32.516756
License: Public Domain

ELLETT, Justice
(dissenting).
I dissent. The facts, save for medical conclusions, are not in dispute. The plaintiff, aged 33 years, was a fireman and responded in the usual manner to a fire alarm during the night of September 25, 1963. He claims to have lost consciousness during the run to the fire. When he arrived there, he had abdominal pains and nausea. He refused to go home but was taken back to the fire station without doing any fire fighting, where after going to the rest room and relieving himself of gas he said he felt better. He took some baking soda and next morning said he felt all right.
It was plaintiff’s contention before the Industrial Commission that he suffered a heart attack while riding on the truck and that said attack was due to the exertion caused by hearing the gong sound to awaken the firemen and the rapidity with which he got dressed, and as a result thereof he was subsequently disabled.
He did not consult a doctor until March 16, 1964, when he went to Dr. Null, an internist, for treatment. However, he continued to work until April 7, 1964, when he became disabled.
Dr. Null diagnosed his condition as having a Wolff-Parkinson-White syndrome together with atherosclerotic heart disease (hardening of the arteries) and hyper-cholesterol condition (a high blood fat level). Dr. Null further found that the disabling pains suffered by the plaintiff were due to an insufficient blood supply to the heart muscles.
On April 7, 1964, plaintiff had a collapse, but the doctor could not find any severe injury to heart muscles.
As a convenience to plaintiff, the referee for the Industrial Commission permitted Dr. Null to testify before the medical panel *145had made its report. Later the chairman of the medical panel, Dr. Viko, a well known heart specialist, testified in this matter. Dr. Viko and the medical panel accepted the diagnosis of Dr. Null as being correct.
Another fact considered by the medical panel and by Dr. Viko was that the plaintiff had two brothers with heart ailments at ages 40 years and 37 years.
Dr. Null testified that the events of September 25, 1963, “very likely did indeed aggravate the underlying heart disease, which must have been present prior to the development of his pain.” He further testified on cross-examination, “I don’t think that one would state that there is an accident which brought this about, but I certainly do believe that the history as related — that is, that the development of the pain for the first time, the sudden collapse episode, and these factors — are very likely related to the acute exertion of that moment.”
Dr. Viko, the heart specialist, testified that the diminished consciousness which plaintiff had while riding on the rear end of the speeding fire truck could be due to the Wolff-Parkinson-White syndrome. He further gave testimony to the effect that there was nothing in the record to warrant a conclusion that plaintiff on September 25, 1963, had a myocardial infarction (the change in the heart muscles resulting from a plugged blood vessel to the heart) or a preceding coronary thrombosis (the plugging of one of the blood vessels which supply blood to the heart). Further, he testified that plaintiff underwent an episode of angina pectoris on September 25, 1963,. which was the result of fatty deposition in the blood vessels.
The Industrial Commission had the problem of deciding whether the disability of the plaintiff was due to a heart attack occurring on September 25, 1963, as a result of the work he was required to do or whether it was a result of the disease called hardening of the arteries. In other words, was there a causal connection between the disability and the occupational events?
The evidence was in conflict. Should the Industrial Commission find as testified by Dr. Null or by Dr. Viko? I think it could have found either way.
Section 35-1-85, U.C.A.1953, is as follows:
After each formal hearing, it shall be the duty of the commission to make findings of fact and conclusions of law in writing and file the same with its secretary. The findings and conclusions of the commission on questions of fact shall be conclusive and final and shall not be subject to review; * * *.
This court has spoken too many times explaining this section to require any further citation. This court should not substitute, its findings for those of the Commission *146where there is competent evidence to support the findings as made.
The order made by the Industrial Commission is supported by competent evidence, and it should be affirmed.
CROCKETT, C. J., concurs in the dissenting opinion of ELLETT, J.