Court Opinion

ID: 9589521
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:45:33.164495+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:27:40.205367
License: Public Domain

Stukes, Justice
(dissenting).
I regret that I find myself in disagreement with the majority of the court in this important case. I think that we have recently fallen into error and supererogatorily rested affirmance of awards of workmen’s compensation in heart cases upon the unnecessary, and therefore superfluous, ground that the claimant or deceased (when death ensued) was undergoing unusual physical strain or exertion in the fierformance of his duties at the time of the injury or death. There is nothing in the compensation act upon which the requirement can be based; the act simply does not provide for compensation in such, cases only when the work at which the employee is engaged when stricken shall involve overexertion or unusual strain. Our early analogous cases followed the reasoning and result to which I would return. I refer to Layton v. Hammond-Brown-Jennings Co., 1939, 190 S. C. 425, 3 S. E. (2d) 492, opinion by the present Chief Justice; and Next of Kin of Cole v. Anderson Cotton Mills, 1939, 191 S. C. 458, 4 S. E. (2d) 908, opinion by the late Chief Justice Bonham, careful consideration of both of which I respectfully invite; they are convincing to me of the propriety of affirmance of the instant award.
*101In this case the medical testimony was entirely adequate to support the finding of the commission, affirmed by the trial court, that the lifting and carrying of the heavy “skids” contributed to and accelerated the death of the employee, which I think makes it compensable under the statute. It was over-exertion for the employee in his weakened heart condition although it was part of his usual duties. An internal mishap, such as that suffered by the deceased employee in this case, is no more or less an accident than one with external effect such as a broken arm or leg. It is needless to cite cases that the latter is compensable although claimant may have been predisposed or more susceptible to the injury because of his previous physical condition. ■ The accident to be compensable need only contribute to or accelerate the disabling or fatal condition which results. A common example of internal accidental injury is hernia, which is well described in our comparatively early Layton case, supra. It is the unintended and unexpected result which makes an accident in the contemplation of the compensation law. Hiers v. Brunson Const. Co., 221 S. C. 212, 70 S. E. (2d) 211, and authorities there cited.
The view which I advocate appears to be that of the majority of the courts. The following is quoted from 58 Am. Jur., 756, 757, Work. Comp., sec. 255: “By the weight of authority, the sudden and unexpected breaking of some portion of the internal structure of the body, as in the case of cerebral hemorrhage, apoplexy, hernia, etc., or the failure of some essential function thereof, as in the case of heart failure, paralysis, and similar afflictions, brought about by the exertions of the employee while engaged in the performance of his duties, or by the conditions of the employment, even without any external happening of an accidental nature, is to be regarded as an accidental injury * * * although there are holdings to the contrary. And this is true notwithstanding the workman may have been suffering from a preexisting infirmity which constituted a predisposing cause of such disablement. It is said, in this connection, that *102an internal injury which is sudden, unusual and unexpected is none the less accidental because its external cause is part of the victim’s ordinary work. And the general rule has been held applicable where such affliction results from blood pressure intensified by vigorous muscular activity, while the employee is performing his work in the usual manner, without any extraordinary effort. It is especially applicable where the disablement or affliction is due to extraordinary effort or over-exertion. * * *”
Numerous supporting decisions are cited in the footnotes to the foregoing text. Among them is Brown’s case, 123 Me. 424, 123 A. 421, 60 A. L. R. 1293, which contains many earlier, similar authorities. Another well-considered heart case is Carroll v. Industrial Commission, 69 Colo. 473, 195 P. 1097, 1098, 19 A. L. R. 107, which likewise supports the general rule of compensability. In it there is quoted the following from 25 Harvard Law Rev. 340: ‘Nothing more is required than that the harm that the plaintiff has sustained shall be unexpected. * * * It is enough that the causes, themselves known and usual, should produce a result which on a particular occasion is neither designed nor expected. The test as to whether an injury is unexpected, and so, if received on a single occasion, occurs “by accident,” is that the sufferer did not intend or expect that injury would on that particular occasion result from what he was doing.’ ”
In the very recent Virginia case cited fin the prevailing opinion Rust Engineering Co. v. Ramsey, 194 Va. 975, 76 S. E. (2d) 195, the court reversed the finding of the Industrial Commission that there had been a causative accident and concluded (as I read the opinion) that claimant’s work had nothing to do with his disablement. Under outlaw, I do not think we can do that in this case because of the substantial medical testimony of causation and the factual finding thereupon of the Commission. That Virginia is not in the minority of States, as apparently are New York and New Jersey, which require unusual exertion for compensa*103tion of internal injuries, or heart cases, is indicated by Derby v. Swift & Co., 188 Va. 336, 49 S. E. (2d) 417, where' a syllabus is: “An ‘accident’ arises out of and in the course of the employment if the exertion producing the accident is too great for the man undertaking the work, even though the degree of exertion is usual and ordinary and the workman had some predisposing physical weakness.” Reference may be had to the opinion for citations of supporting decisions of numerous other courts.
Georgia follows the rule to which I subscribe. See Maryland Casualty Co. v. Dixon, 83 Ga. App. 172, 63 S. E. (2d) 272, 274, a heart case in which it was said: “An accident arises out of the employment when the required exertion producing the accident is too great for the men undertaking the work, whatever the degree of exertion or the condition of health. * * * Where the employment contributes to the injury, it is an accident under the terms of the law, regardless of whether or not some other factors united with the employment to produce it. * * * The fact that such an attack is made more likely or probable by a pre-existing weakened physical condition is not a ground for denying compensation, if there is sufficient competent evidence that it was traumatic rather than ideopathic in origin.” Mass. Bonding & Ins. Co. v. Turk, 84 Ga. App. 547, 66 S. E. (2d) 364, 367, was another heart case, from which the following is quoted: “The courts of this State have held that a heart attack, where brought about by the employee’s work, such as lifting heavy objects, becoming fatigued, over-exertion, straining, et cetera, even though there is no external mishap or unexpected occurrence, is properly found to be an accidental injury, and where disability or death results therefrom, the same is properly found by the board as compensable”. In Griggs v. Lumbermen’s Mut. Cas. Co., 61 Ga. App. 448, 6 S. E. (2d) 180, 182, claimant suffered a brain hemorrhage and resulting paralysis. In affirming award it was said: “But in this case the claimant had arteriosclerosis at the time he engaged in this *104work and lifted these sacks of cement. The rule is that where a previously diseased condition of a claimant for compensation under the workmen’s compensation act is aggravated by an injury or accident arising out of and in the course of the employment, and this results in disability to the claimant, there is a compensable injury.’” Many sustaining authorities from other jurisdictions are cited in the opinion.
Our former decisions, cited in the prevailing opinion, which affirmed denials of awards of the Industrial Commission, the fact-finding body, such as Willard v. Commissioners of Public Works, 219 S. C. 477, 65 S. E. (2d) 874, and Windham v. City of Florence, 221 S. C. 350, 70 S. E. (2d) 553, are not authority for reversal of the award of the Commission in the case in hand. On the contrary, upon the point of the binding force of the Commission’s finding of causal connection here, they are authority for affirmance. And of no present importance are cases such as Rivers v. V. P. Loftis Co., 214 S. C. 162, 51 S. E. (2d) 510, where award was denied because there was no competent evidence of causal connection between the work and the injury or death.
An employer need not become a life insurer of employees weakened by disease, because he may resort to the precaution of medical examinations before and during employment, which it is common knowledge many employers do. The practice is not unlike that of the life insurance companies which require satisfactory reports of medical examinations of applicants before policies of life insurance are issued. Of course, despite this, bad employment risks will occasionally escape detection of the examiners just as bad insurance risks sometimes do. But these are considerations with which the court should not be concerned. The chart for our guidance is the law as written — not as we would add to, or insert in, it. The attention of the legislature was plainly directed to the meaning of the term “accident” as used in the compensation act, at the close of the opinion in the Layton case, supra, 190 S. C. at page 435, 3 S. E. (2d) 492, and an *105amendment of the law was suggested, if desired; but there has been no amendment, which leaves no doubt of the legislative will and intent.
I would affirm the judgment under appeal.
Taylor, J., concurs.