Summary
In Bontempt v. Construction Co., 107 Pa. Super. 258, 163 A. 46, the company showed by medical testimony that the hernia in that case was not of traumatic origin.
Summary of this case from Colorado F. I. Corp. v. FrihaufOpinion
September 29, 1932.
November 21, 1932.
Workmen's compensation — Employee — Injury — Medical testimony — Necessity of — Award — Act of April 13, 1927, P.L. 186.
In a claim for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, the claimant's testimony established that while working in a ditch some dirt and stones fell on him and pushed him against a pipe striking his abdomen and chest. Immediately thereafter he experienced severe pains in his abdominal region and was taken to a hospital where it was discovered that he was suffering from a hernia. There was no medical testimony offered on behalf of the claimant to connect the hernia with the injury. The claimant testified, however, that before the accident he never had abdominal pains and that there was no symptom of rupture.
In such case there was sufficient competent evidence to sustain the finding of the Workmen's Compensation Board that the claimant was injured in the course of his employment and the award for the claimant will be affirmed.
In a claim for compensation, where there is such a close connection between the accident and the injuries as to satisfy a reasonable person as to the cause of injuries, proof by medical testimony is not essential to a recovery. The Act of April 13, 1927, P.L. 186, requires that convincing proof should be offered to support an award.
Appeal No. 63, October T., 1932, by defendant from judgment of C.P., No. 1, Philadelphia County, September T., 1931, No. 3140, in the case of Augustine Bontempt v. Suburban Construction Company.
Before TREXLER, P.J., KELLER, GAWTHROP, CUNNINGHAM, BALDRIGE, STADTFELD and PARKER, JJ. Affirmed.
Appeal from award of compensation to claimant by Workmen's Compensation Board. Before McDEVITT, J.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court.
The court dismissed the appeal. Defendant appealed.
Error assigned, among others, was the order of the court.
Louis Wagner, and with him Thomas J. Clary and Richard A. Smith, for appellant.
Samuel I. Sacks of Sacks Piwosky, for appellee.
Argued September 29, 1932.
The claimant seeks compensation for a hernia alleged to have resulted from an accident in the course of his employment. The uncontradicted evidence is that he was injured on August 20, 1930, while at work in a ditch about eight feet deep, and that, while bending over, stones and dirt fell in on him and the weight thereof "pushed me against a pipe, striking my abdomen and part of my chest against a big pipe that was in front of me at that time, and even the pipes were broken." He immediately experienced severe pains in his abdominal region and was taken to the Abington Hospital, where it was discovered he had "a direct inguinal hernia with a large indurated sac." He was operated upon two days later, but we do not have the benefit of testimony of the surgeon as he died shortly thereafter. His assistant, Dr. Catherine Elson, an interne in the hospital and a graduate of the preceding June, testified that, in her opinion, the hernia was not of traumatic origin. There was no medical testimony offered on behalf of the claimant to connect the hernia with the injury. The referee disallowed the claim. The board, on appeal, reversed the referee's findings, granted an award, and ordered the return of the record to the referee for the purpose of determining the period of disability. On appeal to the learned court below, the board's action was sustained.
The appellant's chief contention is that the claimant failed to furnish "conclusive proof," as required under the amendment of April 13, 1927, P.L. 186, 189, to section 306 of the Workmen's Compensation Law. The legislature no doubt contemplated that convincing proof should be offered to support an award, but there is no expression in the amendment, nor can we read one therein, that requires that proof by medical testimony shall be essential to a recovery, if, as here, there is such close connection between the accident and the injuries as to satisfy a reasonable person as to the cause of injuries. The claimant testified that, before the accident, he never had abdominal pains, and that there was no symptom of rupture when he was examined by a doctor about two years prior thereto in connection with his admission to several organizations to which he belonged.
Here, as in the case of Zionek v. Glen Alden Coal Co., 105 Pa. Super. 189, 160 A. 154, under the uncontradicted testimony, the disability immediately followed the accident, and we there stated that whether the accident was the cause of the disability or the aggravation of a chronic ailment, the claimant is entitled to an award.
After a careful consideration of this record, we have concluded that the assignments of error are without merit.
The appeal is dismissed at the cost of appellant.