Opinion
April 30, 1931.
July 8, 1931.
Workmen's compensation — Employee — Injury — Death — Direct, probable and causal connection — Medical testimony — Findings of fact — Evidence — Sufficiency.
In a claim for compensation by a widow for the death of her husband, it appeared that the decedent was injured in the course of his employment and died approximately eleven months thereafter, from a form of cancer of the kidney. Two physicians who had not attended the decedent were called by the claimant, and in reply to hypothetical questions, stated that in their opinion, the accident most probably produced the cancer which caused death. Five physicians, four of whom had examined and prescribed treatment for the decedent, stated that death was due to a form of cancer and that the injuries sustained in the accident had no direct, probable and causal connection with the disease.
In such case there was ample evidence to support the finding of the Workmen's Compensation Board that there was "no direct, probable and causal connection between the injuries by accident and the condition which resulted in the death of the deceased employee ......," and the order of the court below dismissing the appeal from the award disallowing compensation will be sustained.
Where there is ample evidence to support the findings of fact of the referee and the Workmen's Compensation Board, the appellate court will not interfere.
Appeal No. 156, April T., 1931, by claimant from judgment of C.P., Allegheny County, July T., 1930, No. 3938, in the case of Clara M. Ettmeyer v. Spang, Chalfant Company, Inc.
Before TREXLER, P.J., KELLER, LINN, GAWTHROP, CUNNINGHAM, BALDRIGE, and DREW, JJ. Affirmed.
Appeal from award of Workmen's Compensation Board disallowing compensation. Before GRAY, J.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court.
The court dismissed the appeal. Claimant appealed.
Error assigned, among others, was the order of the court.
Frank C. Link, for appellant.
John R. Bredin, and with him Dalzell, Dalzell and McFall, for appellee.
Submitted April 30, 1931.
A widow claimed compensation for the death of her husband who was injured in the course of his employment January 22, 1928, and died November 12, 1928. The referee and the board concluded that death did not result from the injury and dismissed the petition. On appeal to the common pleas, the learned court properly considered itself bound by the findings of fact made by the compensation authorities and entered judgment for the defendant.
It is peculiarly a medical case. The record contains the testimony of seven physicians. Most of them had examined and prescribed treatment for decedent. A post-mortem was performed and a copy of the report put in evidence. It showed conclusively that the cause of death was "hypernephroma, a form of cancer of the kidney," as found by the board; one of the physicians described it as a "malignant tumor;" — there was a "secondary involvement," he said, of other organs, including the heart. The compensation authorities found that there was "no direct, probable and causal connection between the injuries by accident and the condition which resulted in the death of the deceased employee ......, but that ...... death was the result of disease disassociated from injuries by accident." Two of the seven physicians were called by claimant; they had not treated decedent, as four of the others had, and in reply to hypothetical questions, stated that in their opinion, the accident most probably produced the cancer which caused death. We, of course, are also bound by the findings of fact, as there is ample evidence to support them; in the circumstances, therefore, we cannot interfere with their conclusion.
Judgment affirmed.