Court Opinion

ID: 9670067
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:13:53.36083+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:02.103314
License: Public Domain

RUDOLPH, J.
(concurring specially) . I am inclined to agree that the evidence does not support the finding of the Commissioner that the fall from the grain box caused the intracranial hemorrhage. However, it appears to me that the record establishes without dispute that the hemorrhage was caused either by the fall or by a “stroke”. If deceased suffered a stroke while in the course of his employment, and the work contributed to the stroke, the stroke would be an injury by -accident within the meaning of the Workmen’s Compensation Law. Johnson v. LaBolt Oil Co., 62 S. D. 391, 252 N.W. 869. Or if the fall would contribute to a stroke this would be an injury by accident.
The evidence sustains the view that if deceased suffered a stroke, it was while he was engaged in his work, as the shovel was near where he was found on the pavement, and it was apparent from the injuries sustained that he had fallen from the truck.
I think the case should be remanded to the Industrial Commissioner to determine if necessary by additional evidence whether the type of work deceased was performing or the fall or both would contribute to a stroke.
*553No one can say definitely whether the hemorrhage was due to the fall or to a stroke, but if due to either, and if a stroke would be contributed to by the work or fall, then an award should be made. In either event the'injury was by accident, sustained in the course of employment, and assignable to a definite circumstance.