Opinion
No. 41673.
January 30, 1961.
1. Workmen's compensation — arteriosclerosis — not an occupational disease.
Arteriosclerosis is not an occupational disease.
2. Workmen's compensation — burden of proof — claimant has burden to establish claim before Commission.
Claimant has burden of proof to establish claim before Workmen's Compensation Commission.
3. Workmen's compensation — causal connection — Commission trier of facts — judicial review.
Workmen's Compensation Commission is the trier of facts, and on appeal its order will be respected and sustained if supported by substantial evidence.
4. Workmen's compensation — heart attack — causal connection — evidence — claimant's collapse not precipitated by work or occupation.
Evidence in compensation case supported Commission's finding that heart attack suffered by radio station employee had not been aggravated, accelerated, contributed to or precipitated by his work or occupation.
Headnotes as approved by Rodgers, J.
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Hinds County; M.M. McGOWAN, Judge.
Butler, Snow, O'Mara, Stevens Cannada, Jackson, for appellant.
I. The full Commission, not the courts, is the trier of facts, and if the Commission order is supported by substantial evidence, it is error for the Court to reverse same and to substitute its own finding of facts. Allen v. Westinghouse Electric Co. (Miss.), 118 So.2d 869; American Surety Co. v. Cooper, 222 Miss. 429, 76 So.2d 254; Anderson v. Ingalls Shipbuilding Corp., 229 Miss. 670, 91 So.2d 756; Barry v. Sanders Co., 211 Miss. 656, 52 So.2d 493; Boyd Construction Co. v. Worthy, 234 Miss. 671, 107 So.2d 120; Brown Buick Co. v. Smith Estate (Miss.), 52 So. 664; California Eastern Airways v. Neal, 228 Miss. 370, 87 So.2d 895; Cole v. Superior Coach Corp., 234 Miss. 287, 106 So.2d 71; Dillon v. Gasoline Plant Constr. Corp., 222 Miss. 10, 75 So.2d 80; Dowdle Pearson v. Hargrove, 222 Miss. 64, 75 So.2d 277; Fair Stores v. Bryant, 238 Miss. 434, 118 So.2d 295; Fischer v. Gloster Lumber Builders Supply Co. (Miss.), 57 So.2d 871; Freeman v. Mississippi P. L. Co., 230 Miss. 396, 92 So.2d 658; Fondren v. Fortenberry Drilling Co., 233 Miss. 210, 101 So.2d 654; Gaines v. McCormick, 238 Miss. 535, 117 So.2d 467; Grubbs v. Revell Furn. Co., 234 Miss. 391, 106 So.2d 390; Insurance Dept. of Miss. v. Dinsmore, 233 Miss. 569, 102 So.2d 691, 104 So.2d 296; Malley v. Over the Top, Inc., 229 Miss. 347, 90 So.2d 678; Mississippi Products, Inc. v. Gordy, 224 Miss. 690, 80 So.2d 793; Mississippi Products, Inc. v. Skipworth, 238 Miss. 312, 118 So.2d 345; Railway Express Agency v. Hollingsworth, 221 Miss. 688, 74 So.2d 754; Russell v. Southeastern Utilities Service Co., 230 Miss. 272, 92 So.2d 544; Smith v. St. Catherine Gravel Co., 220 Miss. 462, 71 So.2d 221; Sones v. Southern Lumber Co., 215 Miss. 148, 60 So.2d 582; Southern Engineering Electric Co. v. Chester, 226 Miss. 136, 83 So.2d 811; Sullivan v. C. S. Poultry Co., 234 Miss. 126, 105 So.2d 558; Thornbrough Well Servicing Co. v. Brown, 223 Miss. 322, 78 So.2d 159; Thornton v. Magnolia Textiles (Miss.), 55 So.2d 172; Wallace v. Copiah County Lumber Co., 223 Miss. 90, 77 So.2d 316; Wilson Furniture Co. v. Wilson, 237 Miss. 512, 115 So.2d 141.
II. A hypothetical question must contain an accurate and fair statement of the facts of record, and any expert opinions based on an improper hypothesis are inadmissible and should be accorded no weight. Hamilton v. Huebner (Neb.), 19 N.W.2d 552, 163 A.L.R. 1; Williams Bros. Co. v. McIntosh, 226 Miss. 553, 84 So.2d 692; 58 Am. Jur., Workmen's Compensation, Sec. 451; 100 C.J.S. 551; Dunn, Mississippi Workmen's Compensation, Sec. 171.
III. House Bill 69, enacted by the 1960 general session, Mississippi Legislature, and effective April 23, 1960, is a procedural change in the compensation act which is immediately applicable to all cases not finally decided before the effective date thereof. American Surety Co. of N.Y. v. Boykin, 212 Miss. 310, 54 So.2d 398; Central Electric Power Assn. v. Hicks, 236 Miss. 378, 110 So.2d 351, 112 So.2d 230; Gulf, M. N.R. Co. v. Weldy, 193 Miss. 59, 8 So.2d 249; Havens v. Natchez Times Pub. Co., 238 Miss. 121, 117 So.2d 706; Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. McSwain, 149 Miss. 455, 115 So. 555; Sec. 6998-01, Code 1942; 58 Am. Jur., Sec. 404 p. 844; 99 C.J.S., Sec. 21(d) p. 140.
IV. The Act requires an exertion capable medically of causing collapse, and if injury results from natural consequences, it is not compensable. Francks v. Goyer Co., 234 Miss. 833, 108 So.2d 217; Ingalls Shipbuilding Corp. v. Howell, 221 Miss. 824, 74 So.2d 863; Rushing v. Water Valley Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 232 Miss. 338, 98 So.2d 870.
V. The Court erred in finding that temporary partial disability commenced June 2, 1958.
Bob Ray, Jackson, for appellee.
I. Cited and discussed the following authorities: Central Electric Power Assn. v. Hicks, 236 Miss. 378, 110 So.2d 351; Dixie Pine Products Co. v. Bryant Dependents, 228 Miss. 595, 89 So.2d 589; Hardin's Bakeries, Inc. v. Ranager, 217 Miss. 463, 64 So.2d 705; Harper Foundry Machine Co. v. Harper, 232 Miss. 873, 100 So.2d 779; Highway Patrol v. Neal Dependents, 239 Miss. 505, 124 So.2d 120; Ingalls Shipbuilding Corp. v. Byrd, 215 Miss. 234, 60 So.2d 645; Insurance Department of Miss. v. Dinsmore, 233 Miss. 569, 102 So.2d 691; Pearson v. Dixie Electric Power Assn., 219 Miss. 884, 70 So.2d 6; Reyer v. Pearl River Tung Co., 219 Miss. 211, 68 So.2d 442; Russell v. Sohio Southern Pipelines, Inc., 236 Miss. 722, 112 So.2d 357; Schilling v. Mississippi State Forestry Comm., 226 Miss. 858, 85 So.2d 562; Shivers v. Gulfport-Biloxi Daily Herald, 236 Miss. 303, 110 So.2d 359; Southern Engineering Electric Co. v. Chester, 226 Miss. 136, 83 So.2d 811; W.G. Avery Body Co. v. Hall, 224 Miss. 51, 79 So.2d 453.
This case came to this Court from the Circuit Court of the First Judicial District of Hinds County, Mississippi, where an order was entered by the circuit judge reversing an order previously entered by the Workmen's Compensation Commission. The attorney-referee had entered an order denying the claim of F.E. Wilkerson, Jr., for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act of 1948, as amended. The Commission had, by a majority vote, affirmed the order of the attorney-referee denying the claim. One member of the Commission, however, had written a dissenting opinion in favor of allowing the claim.
The claim for compensation in this case is based upon the following facts: Mr. F.E. Wilkerson, Jr., had worked for the Capitol Broadcasting Company for a period of about twenty years. He began work for this company when the City of Jackson was a small city, and there was little competition to his business. He had remained with the company while it grew and the listening public grew larger, and other broadcasting companies were licensed to do business within this area. Television stations were built and the advertising business became highly competitive, not only with competing radio broadcasting stations but also with newspapers and other agencies of advertisement. The claimant was anxious to advance the business of his company, and worked long hours in an effort to meet the ever increasing competition. He was often tired; he enjoyed his work, however, and liked his employer, who was the owner of the station; nevertheless, when the business was "off" his employer would often press him about "getting the business back up." He began to experience a "pounding in his head" and called on his family physician for a physical examination. The doctor discovered that he had hypertension, or high blood pressure. He was treated for this trouble for three or four years. Claimant's family doctor believed at that time he was under an emotional strain and recommended that he rest. The claimant, however, never complained to his doctor "about being overworked."
On the late afternoon of March 5, 1958, the claimant, a 49 year old white, male citizen of the City of Jackson, went home "a little tired" after a hard work day. He read the newspaper, ate supper, and about nine o'clock P.M. he retired for the evening. After he had been in bed for about thirty or forty minutes, he experienced a pain cross his chest and immediately requested his wife to call his family doctor. When the doctor arrived, he gave claimant a hypodermic and immediately called Dr. James A. Chustz. Claimant was taken to a local hospital where he remained for twenty-seven days. He was then released and returned to his work at the broadcasting station. His work since has been on a limited schedule. His illness was diagnosed as a heart attack.
(Hn 1) The witnesses for the complainant, both lay and expert, have testified to facts and opinions to the effect that claimant's work done for the broadcasting station either contributed to, accelerated or precipitated his heart attack. The witnesses for the appellants were just as fervent in their medical opinion that the myo-cardial infarction was brought about as a result of arteriosclerosis. The expert medical witnesses for the appellant are of the opinion that under the facts in this case, presented to the witness by a hypothetical question or upon actual examination, claimant's work did not aggravate, accelerate or contribute to, nor precipitate his heart attack. Arteriosclerosis is the medical name given a disease where the thickening and narrowing of the coronary artery channels is present; the cause of the disease is unknown. This disease is said to occur more in men than in women, but there is no substantial evidence from which the medical profession can conclude that it occurs more often in one profession or occupation than in another. It cannot, therefore, be said to be an occupational disease. In diseases of this sort, workmen's compensation claims are allowed on the basis of causal connection.
The question presented to the Commission was: Was claimant's disease aggravated, accelerated, contributed to, or was a collapse precipitated by his work or occupation? The medical profession has certain methods by which it can reasonably determine whether or not a claimant's work aggravated, accelerated, contributed to, or precipitated an acute myo-cardial infarction. A problem for determination by the Workmen's Compensation Commission arises when medical experts disagree as to the application of the method used for determining causal connection with claimant's work.
(Hn 2) This Court has heard many cases where the evidence has revealed the factors by which the medical profession determined the causal connection with the work of the claimant. A great many of these cases have been cited in the splendid briefs presented by the attorneys for the parties in this case. The court also has certain methods of determining conflicting claims and conflicting evidence. One method is: The burden of proof is upon the claimant to establish his claim before the Workmen's Compensation Commission. T.H. Mastin Co. v. Mangum, 215 Miss. 454, 61 So.2d 298; Williamson v. Williamson Lumber Co., 230 Miss. 270, 92 So.2d 557; Franks v. Goyer Co., 234 Miss. 833, 108 So.2d 217; Smith v. St. Catherine Gravel Co., 220 Miss. 462, 71 So.2d 221.
(Hn 3) The testimony in this case is conflicting between the claimant's witnesses and the witnesses of the defendants as to causal connection of claimant's illness, to his work. This Court has repeatedly held that the Workmen's Compensation Commission is the trier of facts, and on appeal the Commission's order will be respected, and if supported by substantial evidence will be sustained. Brown Buick Company v. Smith Estate, 52 So.2d 664; Thornton v. Magnolia Textiles, 55 So.2d 172; Barry v. Sanders Company, 211 Miss. 656, 52 So.2d 493; Fischer v. Gloster Lumber Company, 57 So.2d 871; Smith v. St. Catherine Gravel Co., 220 Miss. 462, 71 So.2d 221; Railway Express Agency v. Hollingsworth, 221 Miss. 688, 74 So.2d 754; Dowdle Pearson v. Hargrove, 222 Miss. 64, 75 So.2d 277; Dillon v. Gasoline Plant Construction Corp., 222 Miss. 10, 75 So.2d 80; Sones v. Southern Lumber Co., 215 Miss. 148, 60 So.2d 582; Miss. Products, Inc. v. Gordy, 224 Miss. 690, 80 So.2d 793.
(Hn 4) The Commission having decided against the claim of the appellant, and there being substantial evidence to support its order, we are of the opinion that the learned trial judge erred in entering an order reversing the judgment of the Workmen's Compensation Commission. It is, therefore, the order of this Court that the judgment of the circuit court be and is hereby reversed and the order of the Commission reinstated.
Reversed and order of Workmen's Compensation Commission reinstated.
Lee, Arrington, Ethridge, and McElroy, JJ., concur.