Court Opinion

ID: 9573879
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:00:05.940825+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:43:29.895492
License: Public Domain

HALLEY, Justice
(dissenting).
In my opinion the award made in this case cannot be justified either by the facts or law. There is not an iota of evidence that the deceased sustained an accidental injury of any nature. There is no evidence that he suffered an unusual strain in the performance of his duties as a cutter in his work as a coal miner. No one pretends that his work was not hard but it was not the hardest work in coal mining. There is simply no evidence of anything unusual in his work that brought on his heart attack.
The cases relied upon by the majority are each distinguishable on the facts from the case at bar.
The fellow workers of the deceased in this case testified frankly that there was nothing unusual about the work performed by the deceased; that no special strain was placed upon him. The testimony showed that deceased had a bad heart and had an attack at home a few nights before his death. The majority opinion in this case is more than a liberal construction of our laws. It makes liability when there is none.
If this case is to be the law of this State, every time a man dies of a heart attack on or near his job the employer will have to pay death benefits. This is not what the Workmen’s Compensation Law says but what this Court has said it says.
To me the opinion of the majority violates that fundamental proposition that “we should be just before we are generous.”
I dissent.