Court Opinion

ID: 9857418
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 14:33:56.363805+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:40:27.257085
License: Public Domain

GREENHILL, Chief Justice
(dissenting).
Only four years ago, this Court, following its previous holdings, held that for there to be an accidental injury, or an industrial accident, there must be an undesigned, untoward event traceable to a definite time, place, and cause. This was in a heart attack case, Olson v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 477 S.W.2d 859 (Tex.1972). That opinion quoted the late Justice Norvell who had written that the Legislature has not provided health insurance, but has designed the law to provide for compensation for incapacity flowing from an accidental personal injury except in cases of occupational diseases. That opinion reviewed our previous heart attack cases. They show a liberal interpretation of the workmans’ *656compensation statute, but nevertheless a requirement of some particular strain, exertion, or other precipitating event.
Almost any job insured for workmens’ compensation contemplates some form of physical activity, some more strenuous than others. It is difficult to imagine instances where the employment of workmen could not involve physical activity and some strain.
What we have in this case is a job description, — the type of work the man did, and testimony of the job description that the work could be strenuous, plus some testimony, later discussed, that the job was strenuous.
Neither the Court nor the plaintiff cite any cases wherein a general job description, which includes the possibility of strenuous activity, has been held to be sufficient for a recovery under workmens’ compensation. On the other hand, there is a substantial line of cases, all approved by this Court, where this has been held not to be enough.
Evidence amounting to a general job description was found to be insufficient in the following cases. In Whitaker v. General Insurance Co., 461 S.W.2d 148 (Tex.Civ.App.1970) writ ref’d n.r.e., the plaintiff had the same type of attack as Mr. Henderson. He had an arrhythmia and ventricular fibrillation. There was direct evidence that the plaintiff worked at the service station but no evidence that he performed any particular activity which was competent to produce the attack. The Court held that there must be probative evidence that one seeking recovery did actually sustain a strain or exertion which amounted to a compensable injury and the mere fact that an employee dies on the working premises is not enough.
In O’Dell v. Home Indemnity Co., 449 S.W.2d 485 (Tex.Civ.App. — 1969), writ ref’d n.r.e., the Court held that:
“While the evidence presented here indicated that the work performed by the deceased was normally strenuous, plaintiff produced no evidence that O’Dell’s heart attack was related to or occasioned by any unusual strain or overexertion in O’Dell’s work. Evidence that the work performedby the deceased was strenuous, standing alone, is not sufficient.” [Emphasis added.]
There was no evidence of particular activities causing strain or overexertion and the court stated that in order to show a com-pensable injury of this nature, strain or overexertion may not be presumed. It must be shown by the evidence.
In General Accident, Fire & Life Assur. Corp., Ltd. v. Perry, 264 S.W.2d 198 (Tex.Civ.App.1954) writ ref’d n.r.e., Plaintiff was found dead at the intersection of two highways after walking one mile from a tractor which he had been operating. His job was to build and repair fences and to operate a tractor with a sickle-type moving blade.
There was direct evidence that plaintiff had been driving the tractor mowing grass along the road and that it had mired up on the side of the road; that some attempt had been made to unstick the tractor; that the wheels of the tractor were more difficult to turn when it was mired; but there was no evidence of particular stress or event which caused his attack. The holding was that the trial court should have granted the defendant’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
In Monks v. Universal Underwriters Ins. Co., 425 S.W.2d 431 (Tex.Civ.App.1968) ref’d n.r.e., the Court found no evidence of strain or exertion beyond the normal activities of his job as an auto mechanic. His job could have been strenuous. He had been changing tires that morning and there was direct evidence that he had taken the lugs off the wheels with a machine. No one testified to his specific activities at the time of the attack or as to any strain or exertion. He became ill while “criss-crossing” tires on an automobile. The general job description was held to be no probative evidence, — even a description of work done that morning. The holding was that the trial court correctly instructed a verdict for the defendant.
In Bean v. Hardware Mutual Casualty Co., 349 S.W.2d 284, (Tex.Civ.App.1961) writ ref’d n.r.e., the employee operated a *657blacksmith shop and handled pieces of metal. Some pieces were heavier than others. It was his duty to bring these pieces ,of metal into the shop with the assistance of a chain hoist. The only evidence admitted before the court amounted to a general job description of plaintiff's typical duties as an iron cutter for the Texas Metal Works, which work could have been strenuous. The Court refused to pile presumption on presumption such as to first presume that plaintiff was doing the strenuous work on the day in question and then that he suffered some strain or exertion causing injury which then caused the attack resulting in death three years later. There was no evidence other than that he worked that day and that he performed some duties which he normally performed.
In Houston Fire & Casualty Ins. Co. v. Biber, 146 S.W.2d 442 (Tex.Civ.App.1940) writ dism’d. judgmt. cor., the plaintiff Biber, a foreman at a cotton seed company, while at work collapsed between the seed house and the office on a hot day. Evidence amounting to a typical job description for the employee was introduced, but there was no evidence that he actually performed any of the strenuous activities described. Plaintiff relies on inferences. The late Justice Norvell wrote that, “the fact that Biber was about the premises of the employer, in itself is not sufficient to establish the necessary causal relationship.” “The jury findings to the effect that Biber while in the course of his employment underwent physical exertion or became overheated causing a cerebral hemorrhage and death are based upon speculation, conjecture and surmise and therefore cannot stand.”
In Travelers Ins. Co. v. Smith, 448 S.W.2d 541 (Tex.Civ.App.1969) writ ref’d n.r.e., the employee had been employed as a pumper and treater for oil wells. His duties were to carry chemicals in 30 pound containers to the wells and to lift other materials weighing 50 to 100 pounds. The day he had a heart attack, he left home at 6:30 a.m. There was evidence that the deceased was seen driving his employer’s truck at 9:00 a.m., going to a lease where the employer’s well needed treatment. He had with him the necessary equipment to do the treatment, but at 10:00 a.m. he was at home with chest pains. The court found no valid proof that the deceased suffered a strain or overexertion. “Evidence which establishes only that the event could have occurred does not satisfy the requirement, it must be sufficient to support a finding that it did occur.” That deceased could have been moving some equipment does not constitute evidence of probative force. Notwithstanding a dissent by one justice of the Court of Civil Appeals, this court denied a writ of error.
Our case, in my opinion, is not controlled by Baird v. Texas Employers Insurance Company, 495 S.W.2d 207 (Tex.1973). This Court pointed out in Baird that before the employee had the heart attack, he had had repeatedly to climb a ladder and was doing work that he had not customarily done, i.e., bending conduits. The medical testimony as to causation was centered on these particular physical activities, — climbing ladders, lifting aluminum sheets, and twisting conduits overhead while on the ladder. There was in Baird at least some proof of direct, job related strain. It wasn’t much; and, in my opinion went as far as the Court should go. This case goes much farther,— or all the way.
Other eases are cited by the plaintiff, but they all at least purport to follow the general rule of Olson, and they are distinguishable.
In Continental Insurance Company v. Marshall, 506 S.W.2d 913 (Tex.Civ.App. no writ), the El Paso Court restated the rule established in Olson, supra, that there must be an occurrence traceable to a definite time and place. The plaintiff in Continental was found dead at the top of a flight of stairs. His job involved opening a valve at the top of the stairs. The valve was half open, and a tool used to open valves was lying beside the plaintiff. He had suffered a prior attack while attempting to open such a valve. While no one saw him attempt to open the valve, there is certainly *658direct evidence of his climbing the steps and strong circumstantial evidence of his attempt to open the valve. Medical testimony established the causation factor.
In Hardware Mutual Casualty Company v. Wesbrooks, 511 S.W.2d 406 (Tex.Civ.App. —Amarillo 1974, no writ), there was direct evidence that the plaintiff suffered pain in the chest, difficulty in breathing and complained of heart pains, following his efforts in moving heavy jacks for Wesbrooks Hydraulic Equipment Service Company. Plaintiff there presented direct evidence of a particular job related occurrence which caused the attack.
In the present case the plaintiff has presented no evidence of any work activities actually performed on the day of the attack and has produced only testimony consisting of a general job description to indicate the possibility of job related activities resulting in strain or exertion. The plaintiff’s medical expert testified that if the plaintiff had worked as an air tugger operator and the job had been mildly strenuous, it could have been a producing cause, but so could about any other activity or stress unrelated to the job.
The only evidence suggesting that the job could be strenuous is contained in testimony from Mr. Donald L. LeBlanc, also an air tugger operator at Texaco, who testified as to the general nature of deceased’s job. He also testified that he did not observe Mr. Henderson at work on January 16, 1978, and had no first-hand knowledge of what he actually did that day. All parties admit that the job is different on different units and at different times and that Mr. Le-Blanc was testifying regarding a general description of the job of air tugger operator. Mr. LeBlanc could not say for sure that he had ever worked on the particular unit where Mr. Henderson supposedly worked on January 16, 1973.
Mr. LeBlanc’s testimony indicated that the operation of an air tugger could be physically and mentally taxing and it usually took two people to run or operate it. He testified based upon the assumption that plaintiff was operating the tugger by himself.
On the other hand, Mr. Dawson, the supervisor, testified that unless the person running the air tugger let the cable pile up on the drum, and get tangled, he ordinarily would not be required to pull it off by hand. He also said that on this unit the operator would not ordinarily pull the slack out, and a good craftsman would not have a problem with cable pile-up.
There is no direct testimony from anyone who observed any of the plaintiff’s activities on January 16, 1973. Mr. Dawson, plaintiff’s supervisor, was the only witness called to testify as to the actual nature of plaintiff’s work on the day of his death. He testified that the plaintiff was there at 7:30 and that running the air tugger was his assigned job. When asked, “Did Mr. Henderson work at this job as operating that air tugger all during the day, that is, eight hours of his shift on the day he died?”, Mr. Dawson answered, “Yes, sir, that was his primary job.” Taken in isolation that statement is misleading because Mr. Dawson also testified that, “On this day, the only contact that I actually had with him (plaintiff) was probably just, ‘Good morning, Oakie.’ ” He also testified that he might have been up on the structure all day, that he did not supervise Mr. Henderson’s work, and that he was not aware of Mr. Henderson’s particular activities on the day of his death.
As stated, the possibility of strain or exertion is present in all types of employment especially those jobs involving some element of manual labor. If proof that one’s job may, or even usually does involve some manual labor, or may be strenuous, is sufficient to establish particular strain or overexertion for recovery under the Workmen’s Compensation Laws, then we really have turned this legislation into health insurance. Health insurance may be highly desirable, but the Legislature has not provided for it.
I agree with the judgments of the trial court and the Court of Civil Appeals and with the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals where the holdings are that there is *659present in this case no evidence of probative value which raises a fact issue as to plaintiff’s suffering any particular strain or exertion while at work. I would affirm.
DENTON, J., joins in this dissenting opinion.