Court Opinion

ID: 9611848
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:00:50.541254+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:03:16.847125
License: Public Domain

HODGES, Justice
(dissenting).
I do not believe that an exertion or external force of a physical nature is necessary before an injury can be compensable. Our Workman’s Compensation statutes makes no distinction between an injury resulting from a physical effort and an injury resulting from a mental effort. See, In Re Loague, Okl., 450 P.2d 492 (1969) and Bill Gover Ford Co. v. Roniger, Okl., 426 P.2d 701 (1967). While the claimant in the Gover case sustained a heart attack as a result of a strain that was both physical and mental, the court did cite and quote with approval from the cases of Fink v. City of Paterson, 44 N.J.Super. 129, 129 A.2d 746 and Lobman v. Bernhard Altmann Corp., 19 A.D.2d 931, 244 N.Y.S.2d 425. The Fink case held:
“Where a workman’s heart failure is caused or precipitated by an unusual strain or exertion beyond the mere employment itself, sustained while in the course of his employment, there is a compensable accident, and the strain need not be physical or laborious in character but may consist of ‘unusual emotional or nevrous strain or anxiety.’ ”
From the Lobman case we quoted as follows :
“* * * It is settled that an injury caused by emotional, stress or strain may be found to be accidental within the contemplation of the Workman’s Compensation law. * * *”
I respectfully dissent.
I am authorized to state that BLACKBIRD, WILLIAMS and LAVENDER, JJ., concur in the views herein expressed.