Heart diseases (1910), A. C. 242; 3 B. W. C. C. 275, aff'g 2 K. B. 798; 2 B. W. C. C. 15. The above-entitled case was considered at great length in the various opinions written in the House of Lords. Lord LOREBURN wrote the principal opinion, and in the course of it he said: "In this case a workman, suffering from an aneurism in so advanced a state of disease that it might have burst at any time, was tightening a nut with a spanner, when the strain, quite ordinary in this quite ordinary work, ruptured the aneurism, and he died. This is a mere summary of the facts. *** In what I am about to say I take the facts as he found them in extenso and rely upon them. * * * It may be said, and was said, that if the Act admits of a claim in the present case, every one whose disease kills him while he is at work will be entitled to compensation. I do not think so and for this reason. It may be that the work has not, as a matter of substance, contributed to the accident, though in fact the accident happened while he was working. In each case the arbitrator ought to consider whether, in substance, as far as he can judge on such a matter, the accident came from the disease alone, so that whatever the man had been doing it would probably have come all the same, or whether the employment contributed to it. In other words, did he die from the disease alone or from the disease and employment taken together, looking at it broadly? Looking at it broadly, I say, and free from over nice conjectures: Was it the disease that did it or did the work he was doing help in any material degree? In the present case I might have come to a different conclusion on the facts had I been arbitrator, but I am bound by the findings, if there was evidence to support them. It is found that the strain contributed to the death. There was evidence on which the learned judge was entitled so to find, as I respectfully think, and I, therefore, advise your Lordships to affirm the order of the Court of Appeal." There were two dissenting opinions filed by Lords ARKINSON and SHAW. Where an employé complained of an injury to his heart by Sprains, strains and ruptures (hernia) reason of an accident which caused a "sudden twisting of the body", and the yard surgeon certified merely that it was "highly improbable" that the sudden twisting of the body could have caused the cardiac condition noted on recent examination, but it appeared that the employé had actually been accidentally injured more or less severely, it was held under the circumstances that compensation should be awarded. Re P. C. Weil, Op. Sol. Dep. C. & L., p. 543. A foreman carpenter received an electric shock which threw him against the work bench with such violence that it caused a sudden and unusual acceleration, force and pressure in the action of the heart, resulting in paralysis, and it was held that this was a personal injury within the meaning of the Massachusetts Act. Milliken v. U. S. Fidelity & Guar. Co., Mass. Indus. Acc. Bd., Rep. Cas., p. 187. The death of an employé having chronic valvular disease of the heart was caused by the shock of the fall of a heavy wheel upon him, and it was held that the fatality was due to a personal injury arising out of and in the course of the employment. Welch v. Employers' Liability Assurance Corporation, Mass. Indus. Acc. Bd. 12. Sprains, strains and ruptures (hernia). An internal injury, caused to a person in a normal state of health, by a fortuitous and unforeseen event, in the usual course of his business, is an accident. So held in a case where a workman, while lifting a heavy beam, suddenly tore several fibers of the muscles of his back. Boardman v. Scott & Whitworth (1901), 3 W. C. C. 33, aff'd (1901), 85 L. T. 502; 4 W. C. C. 1. A man was employed in moving heavy planks from one pile to another. During the night the planks were all frozen together so that there was some difficulty in separating them. The lower planks in the pile were more firmly stuck together than those above, but the man was not aware of this. He sustained an injury owing to the difficulty of moving one of Sprains, strains and ruptures (hernia) the lower planks. It was held that there was evidence of an accident. Timmins v. Leeds Forge Co., 2 W. C. C. 10. A workman in his master's field, finding that the grain had been trodden down by bullocks, stooped to raise it and sprained his left leg; or, as the workman explained it, "wrung his left leg." This injury subsequently developed into traumatic phlebitis (inflammation of the walls of the veins. from a physical injury) and it was held that this was a personal injury by accident within the meaning of the Compensation Act. Purse v. Hayward (1908), 1 B. W. C. C. 216. In the last-mentioned case the court remarked that there was "no sound distinction between torn muscles or ruptured fibres and fractured bones." A carpenter strained himself moving a heavy radiator and was afterwards operated upon, death being caused by appendicitis and intestinal obstruction which supervened. It was held that this was an injury within the meaning of the Massachusetts Act and the widow was entitled to compensation. McGuigan v. Maryland Casualty Co., Mass. Indus. Acc. Bd. Compensation was granted where it appeared that the workman had suffered "severe straining of lumbar muscles and bruising of the third and fourth vertebrae." Gross v. Marshall Butters Lumber Co., Mich. Indus. Acc. Bd., Oct. 15, 1913; The Indicator, Oct. 20, 1913, at page 417. A workman, rising from a kneeling position, in which he had been at work, felt a pain in his knee. The cartilage was found to be ruptured. He had wrenched his knee three years before, and had been incapacitated for a time, but had thereafter worked without difficulty until this occasion, although at times he felt pain when getting up from kneeling. It was held that the workman had suffered injury by accident, and was entitled to compensation. Borland v. Watson, Gow & Co. (1911), 49 Sc. L. R. 10; 5 B. W. C. C. 514. Rupture caused by overexertion in the course of a man's work is an accident within the meaning of the Compensa Sprains, strains and ruptures (hernia) tion Act. (House of Lords), Fenton v. J. Thorley & Co. (1903), 5 W. C. C. 1. The court disapproved of the cases of Hensey v. White (1900), 1 Q. B. 481; 2 W. C. C. 1; Roper v. Greenwood (1901), 83 L. T. R. 471; 3 W. C. C. 23, and approved of the decision of the Court of Sessions in Scotland reported in the case of Stewart v. Wilsons & Clyde Company (1903), 5 Falc. 120. The court also cited in support of the doctrine announced the following American cases: United States Mutual Accident Ins. Ass'n v. Barry (1888), 131 U. S. 100, and North American Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Burroughs, 69 Penn. 43. A workman who was slightly ruptured at the time he entered the employer's service, in the course of his work had to subject himself to an unusual though not to a unique strain. The result of this strain was to increase the rupture and incapacitate the workman from following his employment. It was held that although from a purely medical or surgical view, the injury could not be said to be an untoward or unexpected event, it was nevertheless an accident within the meaning of the Act. Fulford v. Northfleet Coal & Ballast Co. (1907), 1 B. W. C. C. 222. A workman who ruptured himself, while lifting some planks in the usual course of his employment was held to have suffered an injury by accident. Timmins v. Leeds Forge Co., 16 T. L. R. 521. A workman who had been operated on for a hernia subsequently was compelled to wear a truss because of the reappearance of the hernia. Several months after he began wearing the truss, while he was driving cows over some moorland country the rupture came down and became strangulated. He was operated upon again but died from exhaustion. It was held that there was no evidence to support an inference that the deceased met with an accident. Walker v. Murrays (1911), 48 Scotch L. R. 741; 4 B. W. C. C. 409. The word "accident" involves the idea of something Sprains, strains and ruptures (hernia) fortuitous and unexpected. A man who was not in a sound condition of health injured himself when doing his ordinary work which was somewhat harder than usual. It was held that the injury was not caused by accident. White (1900), 81 L. T. 767; 2 W. C. C. 1. Hensey v. A man at work called out that he had hurt his back. No one saw what had happened. He was taken home complaining of pains in the back and stomach. He died a week later of intestinal obstruction. There was evidence of previous illnesses and pains in the stomach. It was held that the onus of proving an accident had not been discharged. Farmer v. Stafford, Allen & Sons (1911), 4 B. W. C. C. 223. A woman suffering from an ailment which she knew would be aggravated by lifting boxes which were too heavy for her, notwithstanding continued the work and strained herself. It was held that this was not an accident. Roper v. Greenwood (1900), 3 W. C. C. 23. The Washington Industrial Insurance Commission has made the following general rule in relation to hernia: "Recent medical texts indicating that hernia (rupture) ordinarily develops gradually, rarely as a result of accident, the department rules that a workman in order to be entitled to indemnity for hernia must clearly prove: "(1) The hernia is of recent origin; "(2) It must have been accompanied by pain; "(3) It must have been immediately preceded by some accidental strain in the course of hazardous employment; "(4) There must be conclusive proof that it did not exist prior to the date of the alleged injury. "In case the individual elects to be operated on, the above facts being established, one month total disability only will be allowed for recovery with compensation not to exceed 60% of wages in addition to the scale lump sum. "In case he does not elect to be operated upon, and the hernia becomes strangulated in the future, the results from said strangulation will not be indemnified." |