Court Opinion

ID: 9865043
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 16:21:27.967657+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:36:58.244176
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Holland,
dissenting.
Mindful of the statute under the provisions of which a review of an award of the Industrial Commission in workmen’s compensation cases may be had, and which provides that we may summarily review questions of law involved, I will not subscribe to an opinion by which it is evident that this court has constituted itself a fact-finding body, particularly when it necessarily must, and did, assume a state of facts in order to arrive at the conclusions that follow. This court long- has recognized the *175force and effect of the controlling statutes, and in cases too numerous to mention, has refused to disturb an award of the commission based upon its findings of fact, and since it is my firm conviction that the majority opinion herein has no other effect than a violation of this rule, I respectfully dissent.
As to whether or not there is a finding of fact by the commission which would support its award, in the present case can only be determined from such finding and award. These do not appear in the ma jority opinion, and their essential parts are as follows:
“Claimant contends that her husband’s death was the result of overexertion, electric shock and carbon monoxide poisoning. The evidence is uncontradicted that decedent’s death was the result of a right dilation of the heart, and that carbon monoxide poisoning was not a factor. There was no evidence that decedent had received any electric shock even though under certain circumstances, which were not shown to exist, he might have. Neither is there any evidence that decedent at any time exerted himself strenuously or at all.
“The commission finds that from the evidence that decedent’s death was the direct result of heart failure, the cause of which could not be ascertained by examining surgeons. Claimant having failed to sustain the burden of proof that her husband’s death was either caused or hastened by an accidental injury arising out of and within the course of his employment. It is ordered the claimant’s claim * * * be and the same is hereby denied.”
I am wholly unable to follow the reasoning and conclusions of the majority to the effect that there was competent evidence to prove exertion, even circumstantial. By way of illustration, they say that “Even in a criminal case, circumstantial evidence is sufficient to convict, if the jury is convinced by it.” The difficulty in the case before us is that the circumstances revealed by the evidence did not convince the commission, whose province *176is to determine facts, and whose factual findings we cannot disturb. Neither do I understand that the commission did not discharge its function, in that it did not consider the evidence or did not make a finding as to the fact the evidence was competent to prove, that is, as to whether there was exertion as stated in the majority opinion. I believe that is exactly what the commission did, and it so' declared and when it said “Neither is there any evidence that decedent at any time exerted himself strenuously or at all,” and when it made this declaration it was considering that very question, namely, exertion. The opinion says, “This is a conclusion of law.” It is no more a conclusion of law than what the opinion says was the duty of the commission, that is, that it “should have made a finding as to the fact that the evidence was competent to prove; namely, as to whether there was exertion.”
There properly could be no other finding by the commission than that made, if there was no substantial evidence of exertion, and I challenge anyone to discover any such evidence from a search of this record. We have consistently held in cases of this character that there must be sufficient and substantial evidence to establish that the accident arose out of and in the course of the employment, and that it had a direct causal connection therewith. If any inference may be drawn from the evidence, it can only be by the commission, and not by the court. Here the commission made its finding that there was no evidence that decedent exerted himself at all, and if there is to be a splitting of hairs as there has been by the majority in its opinion, there is no reason why the employer or insurer should not sit in at the operation. The only circumstance from which a weak inference of exertion by deceased could be drawn was that he was seen standing in a position as if about to crank the tractor motor. Possibly he did crank it but the establishment of a causal connection between his death and his employment cannot rest upon such possibility, con*177jecture or circumstance. Moreover, the ultimate question, assuming that an inference of “overexertion” is permitted to be drawn by the court, rather than by the commission, is whether or not “overexertion,” if present, contributed to the heart failure. On this disputed question, the commission made a direct finding that the claimant had failed to sustain the burden of proof that her husband’s death was either caused or hastened by an accidental injury — “overexertion”—arising out of and within the course of his employment.
Had the commission drawn such an inference from the evidence, as this court now has so inconsistently done, its conclusion on such inference should not be disturbed; but if it weighs the evidence and draws no inference, then it has acted within its province. Summed up, to overthrow the finding of the commission, the majority, to justify its opinion, had to assume from circumstantial evidence, overexertion. The commission said it did not exist. The majority then takes a further ill-considered step and overthrows the finding of fact by the commission against the claimant, based upon sharply conflicting medical testimony, that the heart condition “foramen ovale” could have caused the heart dilation on the one hand, and that overexertion could have caused it on the other. If the rule laid down in the majority opinion is to be followed in this jurisdiction, then every disability occurring in the course of employment, irrespective of accidental origin may be included in the list authorizing recovery. I believe the judgment of the lower court should be reversed.
Mr. Justice Bouck concurs in this opinion.