Opinion
December 15, 1938.
January 31, 1939.
Workmen's compensation — Evidence — Findings of fact — Function of board — Appellate review — Aggravation of appendicitis.
1. In a workmen's compensation case, in which it appeared that claimant, an assistant fireboss, slipped and fell in the course of his employment, it was held that there was competent evidence to sustain a finding of the compensation board that as a result of the accident claimant's appendicitis was aggravated and he became disabled.
2. It is the exclusive function of the compensation authorities to weigh the evidence. On appeal, it is the duty of the court to determine whether the findings of fact of the board are supported by legally competent evidence, and, whether on such findings, the law has been properly applied.
Appeal, No. 194, Oct. T., 1938, from judgment of C.P. Schuylkill Co., March T., 1938, No. 151, in case of David D. Workman v. Hazle Brook Coal Company.
Before KELLER, P.J., CUNNINGHAM, BALDRIGE, STADTFELD, PARKER and RHODES, JJ. Judgment affirmed.
Appeal by defendant from award of Workmen's Compensation Board.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the lower court, HOUCK, P.J., as follows:
Claimant, an assistant fireboss in defendant's employ, filed a claim for compensation alleging that he was injured on May 27, 1936, in the course of his employment, by slipping from a rib to a platform, resulting in a ruptured appendix. The referee found that the untoward happening on May 27, 1936, had no relationship to the disability which followed an operation for appendicitis. Consequently, he disallowed compensation. On appeal to the Workmen's Compensation Board, that body set aside the referee's finding of fact and found that the injury to claimant, sustained on May 27, 1936, "aggravated or lit up a pre-existing appendicitis, which was the cause of his disability." On this finding, compensation was awarded and defendant appealed to this court.
Broadly stated, there is but one question presented and that is whether there is any competent evidence to sustain the finding of the board referred to above. Defendant argues that there is no competent evidence to prove an accidental injury and no competent evidence to prove that a pre-existing appendicitis was aggravated by injury.
Our duty, on an appeal such as this, is to examine the record to determine whether the findings of fact of the board are supported by legally competent evidence, and, whether on such findings, the law has been properly applied. We can not weigh the evidence. This function belongs exclusively to the compensation authorities: Trimbath v. Penn Mutual Life Insurance Company et al., 119 Pa. Super. 371, 373. Approaching the problem in this fashion, as we are bound to do, this award must be affirmed.
The claimant himself testified that he went to work on the morning in question in good physical condition without any symptoms of pain in the abdominal region or elsewhere. He said that he was traveling a chute, and, going down, the step was rather far away so that his feet slipped from the rib and he slipped onto a platform, a distance of six feet. He landed on his feet in a sort of crumpled up position. Immediately after the fall, he experienced pain in his stomach toward the right side, which was so acute that he removed his belt. The claimant's evidence sustains the finding of accidental injury. A slip and fall is an accident within any definition of the term.
Claimant remained at his place of employment (the accident having happened at about 10 o'clock in the morning) until some time between 2 and 3 o'clock in the afternoon. He then went home and went to bed and applied home remedies. These proved to be ineffective and he summoned a physician on May 29. The doctor advised immediate operation, and, within a day or two, claimant submitted to an operation at the Geisinger Hospital. His medical witness was Doctor David Hawk, who was the physician who treated him on May 29, but who did not perform the operation. He expressed it as his opinion that the accident brought on the attack of appendicitis. Defendant's medical witnesses testified, in substance, that the accident had nothing whatever to do with the attack of appendicitis. Some of them expressed the opinion that claimant must have had appendicitis before the accident. The operating surgeon testified that he found a small perforation near the base of the appendix; that the appendix was gangrenous; and that there was pus in the abdominal cavity. It will be seen from this brief resume of the medical testimony that there is competent evidence to sustain the board's finding that the accident aggravated a pre-existing appendicitis. As we said before, it is not our province to weigh the evidence. Disability, resulting from accidental aggravation of pre-existing appendicitis, is compensable: Murray v. Brown, 107 Pa. Super. 516.
It appearing that the board's findings of fact are supported by competent proof and that the law has been properly applied, we may not disturb the award.
And now, April 25, 1938, defendant's exceptions are overruled, the award is affirmed, and judgment is entered for claimant and against defendant for $374.56, with interest on deferred payments of compensation as provided by law.
Defendant appealed.
Errors assigned, among others, were dismissal of exceptions to decision of board.
P.B. Roads, for appellant.
Roger J. Dever, for appellee.
Argued December 15, 1938.
The judgment is affirmed on the opinion of the learned President Judge of the court below.