Court Opinion

ID: 9577224
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:33:12.232172+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:20:12.031441
License: Public Domain

VOGEL, Judge
(dissenting).
I regret that I must dissent. I simply do not find any substantial evidence to support the decision, and I believe, therefore, that the law requires a reversal.
I would add a little to the facts stated. The distance from Petersburg, where the decedent and his wife lived, to Grand Forks is about 45 miles, so the decedent drove about 90 miles a day to and from work. The two hours or so consumed by the driving were in addition to the long hours worked, as set out in the majority opinion.
The only medical evidence was offered by the claimant. The Bureau offered nothing, except by cross-examination.
Both of the expert witnesses were highly qualified, one in psychology and the other in psychosomatic medicine.
Both of them testified on the basis of hypothetical questions to which no objection was made. The questions were based entirely upon facts testified to by the widow of the decedent, time records of the employer, and the autopsy records and medical records received without objection. Dr. Wallace, the psychologist, testified that in his opinion, based upon reasonable probability, “it is highly likely that these preexisting psychological conditions precipitated stress which eventually led to the rupturing of the blood vessels in the brain,” and,
“The basis was this: That assuming the history of long hours of work and assuming that this led to exhaustion, furthermore taking into account the coroner’s report which stated in part, ‘Massive subarachnoid hemorrhage with cerebral hemotoma secondary to ruptured anomalous aneurism of the right posterior communicating artery,’ that taking these into account, plus the references I looked up in the text by Weiss and English on psychosomatic medicine, that there is a line of reasoning here which is reasonable and leads one to the professional conclusion that it is quite likely that these pre-existing conditions can lead to physical damage, which then eventually leads to death.”
Incidentally, the letter from claimant’s counsel containing the inaccurate statement as to the decedent’s working hours (italicized in the majority opinion) was not referred to in the hypothetical question to Dr. Wallace, nor in his answer. The letter was later brought up in cross-examination by the attorney for the Bureau after queries about the documents which had been furnished to Dr. Wallace.
Dr. Olmstead testified that, based upon a reasonable medical probability, a rise in blood pressure can be caused by stress, overwork, or fatigue and can rupture a pre-existing aneurysm such as the decedent had.
We have always held that aggravation or acceleration of a pre-existing condition may be an injury compensable under the *176Workmen’s Compensation Act. Pfeiffer v. North Dakota Workmen’s Compensation Bureau, 57 N.D. 326, 221 N.W. 894 (1928); Pace v. North Dakota Workmen’s Compensation Bureau, 51 N.D. 815, 201 N.W. 348 (1924). In Pfeiffer, the injury was due to a slight blow which, because of a pre-existing tumor, resulted in plaintiff’s blindness, and in Pace, the pre-existing condition was high blood pressure and arteriosclerosis which made decedent more vulnerable to “brain hemorrhage, otherwise known as apoplexy,” from which he died after working in excessive heat. The latter case is particularly pertinent to the present case, where the pre-existing condition was an aneurysm, which burst after decedent worked long hours over an extended period, and likewise caused death b> a hemorrhage in the brain.
Other jurisdictions have allowed awards in cases where long hours contributed to the injury or death. In J. D. Jewell, Inc. v. Peck, 116 Ga.App. 405, 157 S.E.2d 806 (1967), the decedent was overweight and hypertensive and suffered a fatal heart attack partly because of the long hours he worked. The claimant was allowed compensation. And see Bingham v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeals Board, 261 Cal.App.2d 842, 68 Cal.Rptr. 410 (1968) [finding for Bureau set aside and action remanded because of error in application of law], and Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. Craig, 243 Ark. 538, 420 S.W.2d 854 (1967).
In the case before us, the only basis for the Bureau’s decision that the death was not compensable is that there was testimony that the decedent enjoyed his work, from which the Bureau drew the inference that he was under no strain, and therefore the death could not have been caused by strain or overwork. This is not only an “awfully over-simplified” view, as Dr. Wallace described it; it is also illogical and unreasonable. To illustrate, I would suppose that a professional football player or an astronaut enjoys his work, but no one can say that he is not under stress, either in the common sense of the term or the medical sense. But if either the football player or the astronaut should drop dead from a burst aneurysm during employment, surely no one could successfully contend that the right to claim compensation for his death would be lost solely because of the fact that he enjoyed his work. Similarly, I know that busy trial lawyers or businessmen can enjoy their work and still have strokes precipitated by the stress of their work, but surely no one could claim that the Workmen’s Compensation Bureau would not be compelled to provide coverage for the hospitalization for treatment of the resulting strokes.
Nor do I read Sandlie v. North Dakota Workmen’s Compensation Bureau, 70 N.D. 449, 295 N.W. 497 (1941), or any other of our cases, as having adopted the “unusual-exertion test” in this State. Sandlie states that the general rule is that acceleration of a pre-existing condition may be considered to be the proximate cause, but observes that this rule should not be carried to ridiculous extremes, and holds that the claimant did not sustain the burden of proof. As I read the decision, it does not adopt the “unusual-exertion test.” We should not do so now, or even “leave for another day the determination of the survival of the unusual-exertion test.” A rule that never lived cannot “survive.” To adopt such a rule would be, I believe, a move backward and against the modern trend and contrary to the rule in the “overwhelming majority of jurisdictions.” See quotations from Larson, Workmen’s Compensation Law, Section 38.20, in majority opinion.
As the majority opinion points out, a large majority of the States (even including those which otherwise follow the unusual-exertion test) hold that where “usual exertion” leads to a rupture or breaking or herniating, as of an aneurysm, a recovery is allowed. It also points out that the trend is for more States to join this large majority. Why, then, should we go in the opposite direction? The majority opinion seems to be based on the belief that we are bound by language of the Sandlie case and *177by a duty to sustain the Workmen’s Compensation Bureau where there is a factual basis for its findings.
But I believe that the majority misreads the Sandlie case, which really holds only that the claimant did not sustain her burden of proof, and I would hold that there is no factual basis for the decision of the Bureau in the present case.
As I see it, this case offers an interesting contrast with Foss v. North Dakota Workmen’s Compensation Bureau, 214 N. W.2d 519 (N.D.1974), which we decided only a short time ago. In Foss, the plaintiff simply failed to present proof of a causal connection between the employment and the death occurring in the course of employment. We held there that “a compensation award cannot be made on surmise, conjecture, or mere guess” when the medical proof is adverse to the claimant. In the same way, we should hold here that an award cannot be denied on the basis of surmise, conjecture, or mere guess when all the medical evidence is favorable to the claimant.
I would reverse the judgment of the lower court, on the ground that there is no substantial evidence to support it.