According to appellants’ brief, they are dependents оf a “deceased” employee of the appеllee and, as such, filed a claim for compensation оn Industrial Board Form No. 10. The application and award of thе Board are not shown in the brief. It is stated that the Board “decided this question in the negative”, that the decedent did not sustain an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of his employment with appellee and that appellant take nothing. The nаme of the decedent is not disclosed by any brief herein.
Appellants’ condensed recital of the evidence cоnsists only of an hypothetical question put to one Dr. Cecil Patterson, on deposition, and his answer and opinion given in resрonse thereto. His opinion was that “assuming the facts” outlined in thе question to be true, the “emotional upset” of decedеnt “precipitated the coronary occlusion of dеcedent which was the immediate cause of his death.” Apрellants then say that “Defendant’s Doctor Ralph Denham, alsо confirmed that emotional upset, and distrubance has the еffect which Dr. Patterson- said it did.” And they further say “so there is no confliсt of evidence about the facts of this case.” The testimony of said Dr. Denham, on deposition, or -any part thereof, is nоt given or set out in appellants’ brief.
*47
*46
Appellee, in its brief, calls attention to the failure of appellants’ brief “to make any reference to the
*47
evidence in this cause аs required by Supreme Court Rule 2-17 (d).” Appellee then procеeds to set forth a recital of testimony of the appellant, Kathleen Campbell, and of testimony given by Dr. Ralph Denham, by dеposition. Appellants have filed no reply brief and we аre warranted, therefore, under the conditions here existing, in аccepting as true what appellee’s brief says about the evidence omitted from the condensed recital of the evidence in appellants’ brief.
Bryan
v.
Reiff
(1922),
As set out in appеllee’s brief, said Dr. Denham testified that “a man described as decedent was could have a coronary occlusion while doing his regular work, driving his car, sitting or sleeping”; that decedent’s ■ “coronary system had deteriorated to the point where it could no longer stand the load on it, whether from his usual activities or usual inactivi ties”; that “emotion will not cause a person’s heart rate to pick up any more than a brisk walk or similar amount of activity”; and that “even if decedent did hаve an emotional upset and several minutes or hours latеr dropped dead it would be hard to connect the emotion and the death.” (Emphasis supplied)
Appellants say that “the evidence in this cause is capable of only one inference which leads to but one conclusion which in turn is contrary to the conelusion reached by the Industrial Board.” We cannot agreе with this statement. It seems to us that conflicting inferences were presented to the *48 Board on the essential issue of whether dеcedent’s injury and death arose out of and in the course оf his employment. The Board having reached a conclusion on such conflicting inferences, we are not at liberty nor are we impelled to substitute a conclusion opposite to that reached by the Board.
Award affirmed.
Bierly, Gonas and Pfaff, JJ., concur.
Note. — Reported in