Court Opinion

ID: 9573548
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:56:39.866899+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:41:34.816268
License: Public Domain

Per Curiam.
Relator seeks review of a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board awarding benefits to respondent, widow of the de*43ceased employee.1 The only question before the court is whether the evidence sustains the board’s finding of a causal relationship between the employee’s fatal heart attack and his employment.
The employee, age 60, died on Sunday, December 7, 1969, approximately 10 or 11 hours after leaving work. He was employed as a welder on the afternoon shift. During the week preceding his death he worked 6 days. The first part of the week he assembled 10-pound rake wheels, assembling 28 on Wednesday and 45 on Thursday. On Friday and Saturday he assembled tork tubes, a basic tube weighing 35 pounds to which parts weighing 43 pounds were attached. Although a compressed air hoist was available for lifting, no evidence was submitted as to whether or not it was used by the employee. While working, the employee wore approximately 12 pounds of protective clothing.
On Friday, December 5,1969, the employee appeared and acted very tired. He complained of a pain in his right side and said he wished he did not have to work that night. When he returned home from work, he appeared more tired, moving very slowly. His complexion was described by his wife as pallid and ashen, “very, very different than what he had ever looked like.” He slept very restlessly that night.
Larry Hudson, the employee’s son-in-law drove him home from work Saturday night. When Hudson commented that the employee appeared tired, he replied, “[T]he bastard put me back on heavy duty.” The employee also complained to his wife that evening that work had been “bad,” that he had been put on hard work again. He appeared very pale and dragged out that evening. He rubbed his left shoulder and groaned. Although he took a pain pill and a sleeping pill, he was awake most of the night groaning and going to the bathroom several times. He died at approximately 10:30 a. m. Sunday.
Two doctors testified at the compensation hearing. Dr. Raymond W. Scallon was of the opinion that the employee’s fatal *44heart attack resulted from the natural degeneration of coronary disease. Dr. Marvin Segal testified that in his opinion the employee’s work activities aggravated his preexisting coronary atherosclerotic disease, inducing myocardial infarction and subsequent death.
Aggravation of an existing heart condition by work-related activity is compensable despite the fact that such work would not injure a healthy heart. Dudovitz v. Shoppers City, Inc. 282 Minn. 322, 164 N. W. 2d 873 (1969); Kemling v. Armour & Co. 222 Minn. 397, 24 N. W. 2d 842 (1946). In Stibbs v. Northwest Airlines, Inc. 277 Minn. 248, 252, 152 N. W. 2d 318, 321 (1967), we discussed the requisite relationship between work activity and death by heart attack as follows:
“* * * While it is no longer necessary to show' that the exertion must be something extraordinary, or an accident, Golob v. Buckingham Hotel, 244 Minn. 301, 69 N. W. (2d) 636, it must be shown that the death from a heart attack is due to the work that was being done and that the employment was a contributing factor in bringing about the death.”
Conflict in the opinions of medical experts must be resolved by the compensation board as triers of fact. Grabowski v. Great Northern Oil Co. 283 Minn. 205, 167 N. W. 2d 14 (1969). The compensation board’s findings on questions of fact will not be disturbed unless consideration of the evidence and inferences permissible therefrom clearly require reasonable minds to adopt contrary conclusions. Saholt v. Northwest Airlines, Inc. 290 Minn. 393, 188 N. W. 2d 772 (1971). In Dudovitz v. Shoppers City, Inc. 282 Minn. 322, 327, 164 N. W. 2d 873, 877 (1969), we noted the following:
“It is only when the evidence is so conclusive that only one . inference is permissible that this court on review may interfere with the finding of the Industrial Commission. This rule is particularly applicable to cases involving causal relationship between a heart attack of one kind or another and the employment. *45Here, probably more than anywhere else, it is next to impossible to determine causal relationship with any degree of certainty, and the factfinder’s choice between permissible inferences must be based on the credibility of the medical experts in the case as applied to the other evidence in the case. And when they have divergent views it is not for us to say which was right.”
The determinative finding that the employee’s death was causally related to his employment is supported by substantial evidence in view of the entire record as submitted.
Attorneys fees in the amount of $350 are awarded respondent on this appeal.
Affirmed.

 This matter was previously before the court. See, Wever v. Farmhand, Inc. 302 Minn. 546, 224 N. W. 2d 162 (1974).