This is a workman’s compensation case. The employe claims he was ruptured while at work for respondent in its mine. The referee found that on June 21, 1922, the employe became temporarily totally disabled while at wоrk, but that he failed to prove he met with accidental injuries which arose out of and in the course of 'his employment, and denied compensation. He appealed to the industrial commission, where the decision of the referee was affirmed. By certiorari the matter is before this court.
Some point is made as to the practice - adopted by the referee. After the introduction of the employe’s evidence, the employer moved to dismiss. The motion was taken under advisement,' but, instead of passing on the motion, the referee made findings of fact and conclusions of law dismissing the petition of the employe on the merits. We do not think the Workmen’s Compensation Statute requires the procedure thereunder to be the same in every respect as in the ordinary trial courts. So long as the parties have full opportunity to present their evidencе and be heard on the claim in conformity to the provisions of the act, this court should not reverse on mere form of procedure.
If there is any evidence fairly sustaining the findings they must stand. State ex rel. Niessen v. District Court,
Tested by these decisions we are of opinion the evidence established as positively as the injury рermits that relator’s hernia was an accidental injury received in and arising out of his employment. The compensation law defines personal injuries due to accident “to mean an unexpected or unforesеen event, happening suddenly and violently, with or without human fault, and producing at the time injury to the physical structure of the body.” Laws 1921, p. 126, c. 82, § 66, subd. h. In this case we have an unexpected or unforeseen event, the injury. Relator did not еxpect or foresee that his lifting the timber would produce hernia. It happened suddenly and violently, for relator at once sank down on his knees with pain, indicating physical violence done to the body. And when shortly therеafter the body was opened the recently ruptured muscles and fascia clearly proved that the eause of the sudden collapse and pain was the injury to the physical structure of the body that must have occurred at the time of the. attempted lifting of the timber.
From the referee’s memorandum, as well as that of the commission, the difficulty seems to be that the statute was given a narrow instead of a liberal construction. The idea prevailed that in no case can the sudden giving way of some structure of the body unaccompanied by some external untoward event be considered accidental injury within the compensation act. Our construction of the act so far has indicated a contrary view. In State ex rel. v. Puhl-mann,
The doctor admitted in this case that he could not say positively that the lifting of the timber caused the rupture, but his opinion based on what he found and the history of the case was that it did. No other testimony could be expected from any competent and honest medical expert. That relator may have been predisposed to hernia does not affect his right to compensatiоn. “Every workman brings with him to his employment certain infirmities.” Honnold, Workmen’s Compensation, p. 461. Hogan v. Twin City Trust Est.
The statute, Laws 1921, p. 120, c. 82, § 53, provides that the findings upon which compensation is granted or denied must rest upon
Our Workmen’s Compensation Act was adopted after a study of the operation and construction of the English law, and after the courts of that country had receded from the narrow construction of accidents as applied to injuries causing hernia. Fenton v. Thorley & Co. 19 T. L. R. 684, 5 W. C. C. 1; Clover, Clayton & Co. v. Hughes, 3 B. W. C. C. 275 [1910] A. C. 242. If there is a causal connection between the work the employe is doing and the sudden and violent rupture, break or tear in the physical structure of his body, the injury comes within the definition of accidental even though there is nothing extraordinary occurring in or about the work itself such as slipping, or falling or being hit. The exception to this rule seems to prevail in Michigan, where it is held that, unless some fortuitous event aside from the exertions in the ordinary cоurse of the work is shown to be the cause of a hernia, it is not compensable. But the courts generally do not so construe accidental injuries under workmen’s compensation acts. E. Baggot Co. v. Industrial Com.
We conclude that on the evidence presented relator was entitled to findings in his favor. The decision is reversed and the cause remanded with directions tо amend the findings and conclusions of law in conformity with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
On November 30, 1923, the following order was entered:
The petition for rehearing is denied. When the employe appealed to the commission from the decision of .the referee, the employer did not see fit to put in any defense, or ask to be permitted so to do, but stood upon the record as made before the referee, well realizing that the controversy would be decided on the merits. The Workmen’s Compensation Act intended summary and inexpensive relief. To compel the employe to again go through with this litigation seems unjust. That he experienced sudden and severe pains when in the act of lifting a timber in his work, he alone сould and did testify to. That he had suffered a recent hernia, the physician who operated therefor alone could determine, and he testified and was thoroughly cross-examined by the employer. In order to determine this case justly, there is no need to further consider divergent theories of medical experts concerning the origin of hernia.