270 Mass. 256 | Mass. | 1930
This is an appeal by the insurer from a decree of the Superior Court confirming an award of compensation made to the employee by the Industrial Accident Board. The employee claimed, and the Industrial Accident Board in review of a decision of a single member of that board found “upon all the evidence, that the employee received a personal injury arising out of and in the course of his employment; that the injury was due to lead poisoning resulting from employee’s work as a painter for the subscriber; and that the date of the employee’s injury is July 18, 1928, the date upon which he last was able to work and toward the latter part of which day he was obliged to leave his work, due to the effects of lead poisoning.” The only issue presented to this court for determination is whether there was any evidence which would warrant the finding of the Industrial Accident Board.
The employee was thirty-eight years of age and generally weighed between one hundred and sixty-five and one hundred and sixty-eight pounds. He testified in substance as follows: He had been a painter for nine years. When he began work as a painter his health was good. For seven or eight weeks prior to July 18, 1928, he had been working for the subscriber “at Salisbury Gabel on a Modern Home.” The first couple of weeks he was putting some kind of glaze on the walls and was finishing some new floors. He did some sandpapering on the floors, which were sandpapered before they were painted at all, and between each coat. The woodwork was sandpapered first. He started to work in the cellar of the “Modern Home” and “while working in that house he mixed paints and did sandpapering.” He was sick about two weeks before July 18, 1928; he worked the day through but did not work for one week after that day; he then came back and worked two weeks more up to July 18. During the years he was a'painter, in connection with his work he “mixed his own paints largely and he has done quite
There is no evidence in the record that any paint or any painting compound used by the employee contained lead or other harmful substance while he was in the employment of the subscriber. The testimony of the physician (Fossner) that the description of the employee’s symptoms during the three years last past indicated lead poisoning, justified, if believed, the finding of the board of review that the injury of the employee was due to lead poisoning, but afforded on the evidence no basis for its further finding that “the date of the employee’s injury is July 18, 1928.” There is no evidence in the case that the alleged lead poisoning of the employee was due directly or indirectly to his employment with the subscriber. It is elementary that the evidence must prove that the accident arose out of, as well as in the course of, the employment. We find no causal relation between the injury of the employee and the nature of his employment. Sanderson’s Case, 224 Mass. 558. Green’s Case, 266 Mass. 355. Herlihy’s Case, 267 Mass. 232.
It follows that the decree must be reversed and a decree entered for the insurer.
So ordered.