*1 Raymond Company, Employer, Pile Concrete Emma Decker Limited, Corporation, and Guarantee The Accident Ocean (2d)W. 267. S. Insurer, Appellants 82 May 7, Two, 1935.
Division appellants. L. E. Durham and Hale Houts Henry Conrad, (1116) *2 for Sprinkle Sprinkle & C. Fischer, and Paul Hyde & Hook spondent. WESTHUES, Respondent, Ray Decker, widow filed as the C. claim Compensation seeking with the Workmen’s Commission compensation
recover the death her husband. The commission theory compensation heard the case denied respondent on the that the death arising of Decker was not an accident out employment, of his of and course
other Respondent appealed causes. to the Circuit Court of Jackson County where, by judgment entered, commission was set aside and the commission ordered to enter an award allow- ing judgment appealed. compensation. this defendants From $7,500,
If compensation were allowed the amount would exceed jurisdiction in appellate hence this court. The disclosed thereto, during July, 1931, prior the month deceased was Company. On employed by the Concrete Pile regular duties, used an torch melt metal. line with his *3 open performed was air near the Missouri River This work evening same ill City, in Kansas Missouri. That deceased became physician, a examination, On it was dis- and called a doctor. suffering lungs. of the A later was with edema closed that deceased suffering, was that deceased then had also disclosed examination trouble, physician with heart referred prior thereto suffered charge myocarditis. in he an physician made The as lungs. edema cause of the After to determine the examination he him that had inhaled and questioning patient informed some and that a leak existed in gas a headache produced which smelled in his the edema tank. The doctor testified spent inhaling fumes. Deceased a poisonous by the was caused days. for went to work a few hospital, later in- a week or more made, On the 29th paid. allowed and compensation was A claim again year was taken to a same deceased day October of the following day. contention be- Claimant’s hospital where Ke died to the was at least due partially that death was the commission fore contention was Defendants’ deceased, on gas, by inhaling of Each side heart condition. solely to deceased’s that death respective their substantiate endeavor to in an offered evidence indicated, that death was the found, as commission The theories. of an accident. The circuit not the causes and of other sult theory on the that the commission of the order aside the court set to sustain the sufficient, competent evidence not did record contain< award. the trial court was whether us question before The sole An of the Com award made. setting aside the justified special verdict and regarded lawin Commission pensation prevail. it' must substantial, competent [Leilich supported
1119 Co., 112, (2d) 601, v. Chevrolet 328 40 604 (4, Motor Mo. S. W. l. c.
5); Jackson Cnrtiss-Wright 805, 334 68 Airplane Co., v. Mo. S. W.
(2d) 715, l. c. Compensation The Act has been and should be 719.] liberally If construed. doubt arises it should be construed favor employee. (Mo. 24 App.), v. Tel. Co. S. W. Columbia [Betz (2d) 224, (2-8) 1200, 328 43 ; Harker, l. c. 228 Mo. S. W. Pruitt v.
(2d) 769, Co., (4, 5); l. c. 773 Schulz Great Atl. & Pac. Tea 616, (2d) 3).] Mo. (2, l. c.
With the above rules of law us examine the record to in mind let question sufficiency to sustain determine the of the evidence pur- discloses, the award. The will assume for record and we substantial, evi- pose ease, competent of this that claimant adduced therefore, compensation. will, an award of It support dence length behalf necessary introduced on to review at the evidence Black, witness, Dr. examined respondent. Appellants’ -of This August history of his illness. 11, 1931, and from him obtained part witness testified as follows: right All go ahead and tell the Commissioner —now what
-conclusions came to as result of examination which August 11th. A. Well, the Iway concluded the man was suffering with a condition; heart at him, the time I saw he had a very evidence, definite physical both as to findings, together with his tory gave he typical we history cases; find in heart had shortness of expectoration breath and bloody .frothy speetum happens daily many very frequently say, I will they have times— looked heart disease and upon it’s upon least look it—as some —at of the premonitory findings first find in the case of heart *4 decompensation lagging where the heart is failing, or little shortness of breath when expectoration he and bloody frothy exercises of sputum saliva perhaps or which is of pulmonary edema which you very frequently sign find early as of decompensation; cardiac man clogging percussion chest; this had had, or he this as enlargement right have report, of heart to . . .” “Q. Now, you was it from that evident to examination that he trouble, suffering must have been from heart for some this consider- findings sir, physical period Yes, able of time? A. from increase in X-rays, things percussion and these size of the heart both on night repeatedly happen days, per- or few heart had been don’t over enlarged. gradually haps put and exertion and had to overwork ‘‘ long Q. A long developmental process period ? A. Over of time.
“Q. A. long, or Well rather difficult years? About how months years, months, perhaps certainly period of at least say over to days. few things happen don’t in a few weeks or those “Q. patients frequently that character do In case of a heart of symptoms as outlined attack with he to come down with a heart such you having Yes, very frequently, as experienced 7th? A. very common condition as history patient from heart elicited with this man had.” On cross-examination he testified:
‘‘ Q. Can you edema, assume a man did have pulmonary condition of you prior or had it he had to the extent found examination Yes, some evidence it there? A. sir.
“Q. you primary Don’t know pulmonary edema is one of gas? Well, specify results of inhalation A. can poisonous gas?
“Q. monoxide, any gas? Well, Carbon A. if or irritant of course irritating perhaps in sufficient produce concentration would effect. ' ‘Q. is a A. If produce— It fact will concentration. sufficient “Q. gave gas? man history having And inhaled some A. He did.
“'Q. Then, you say positive gas how fact that this had can as nothing pulmonary history; to do with edema? A. From dis- he he his closed how inhaled it and amount of and location—he just enough being concentrated out of doors—I can’t conceive ’’ irritating produce effect. any Davis, acetylene experience who had had considerable with follows: “Q. During war, what had with it. A. state connections war; charge work after the I had medical down at the It was Sweeney March, 1919 seen Automobile School from absolutely through 2,000 go place pre- men and took no about complain of working saw a fellow department never caution symptoms acetylene poisoning, any of it. separate A.
“Q. Working department?. Separate department different. department; departments all just room, Indoors,
“Q. no more ventilation than Indoors? A. like this. burning acetylene, torches— A.
“Q. they how used State torch, oxygen channel and regular welding in one Burning in the other. burning been at one time? A. Had
“Q. many say how Would going twenty and I all have seen twenty of them down about time. at one they to, put these torches state use addition to the In them do with reference to use of you have seen anything,
what, *5 acetylene when present A. Take lighted. when acetylene not —tell recognize by stuff can I the and smelling smelled and have any ill I seen effects any effects, ill never having far as odor the it.” from
1121 n the, It was opinion of this incomplete witness that even there was improper and operation combustion in acetylene torch, the of an to a leak oxygen, and aas result carbon formed, monoxide was injurious it could be person operating to a a torch in the open may air. It acetylene noted here that was a small leak in the gas supply tank oxygen and not in supply feeding the torch with which working. deceased was opinion
In of Dr. Helwig, specialized who in pathology, de- ceased’s death was due to a diseased condition of the heart. Helwig’s
It was also opinion July that Decker’s in sickness gas. due to the inhaling heart condition and not to Note the following testimony: “Q. your In opinion you say there are sometimes minute —as
quantities of sulphine hydrogen, carbon monoxide or or arseniureted hydrogen sulphide an imperfect would combustion in the ace- —and tylene open, not, tank out in opinion, state whether in any upon being? that I possibly could have effect a human A. don’t slightest. think have the
“Q. oxygen surrounding A. That because of the it? Because of surrounding quick gases atmosphere. in diffusion
“Q. findings in this case believe have stated that the are slowly long standing? typical progressing of those of a lesion of A.
Yes. might poisons Mr. these that Fischer has asked about gases; anything report autopsy
exist in the is there slightest him? A. they that did exist with Isn’t shows by any gas, the autopsy suggest poisoned man was at ’’ very his death is obvious. lesion that caused testing many years ace- Banash, experience a man of James I. manufactured,, tylene as now appliances, testified that large produce quantities as to unless taken such itself harmless an anaesthetic and unconsciousness; a sedative and acts as that it is tending prove was other evidence not an irritant. There in- irritant and that not an acetylene gas in itself is a sedative and lungs. edema of the produce of such could not halation competent to, in our The evidence referred was, there The commission point at issue. went to the substantial are without au finding and we it did fore, to make the authorized holding we have not over made. In so thority the award to disturb inhalation of if the respondent, contention, looked the 7, was a con alleged to have occurred gas com was entitled claimant tributing deceased’s death cause of Co., 334 Mo. Holten-Seelye pensation. rule. Such [DeLille 3) v. Thrift Const. (2, ; Harder (2d) 835, 464, l. c. However, if the (8).] (2d) (Mo. 34, l. c. 53 W. App.),
Co. S. *6 by inhalation appellants believed, introduced be tbe is to gas, by death, deceased, did not but such contribute to deceased’s witness, death was Dr. a bad heart. Claimant’s main O’Connell, signed had waited a death certificate who following: stated as the cause death the importance principal
“The cause of and related death causes coronary were as follows: Arteriosclerosis occlusion. contributory Multiple
“Other cardiac in- importance: causes farcts and cardeal deflation.
“Name of None. operation: autopsy?
“Was an Yes. “(Signed) O’Connell, M. D., P. J. ours.). “(Address) Main, (Italics K. C.” Helwig,testified probably Dr. the word an error defitation Webster’s copying report the it should dilatation. Dictionary Helwig. New Dr. O’Connell International confirms lungs opinion the of the also that while it was his edema by caused caused the inhalation of it could have been the condition of the heart. record, opinion our
Considering it all of the evidence is only substantial, supported the award of the commission being preponderance thereof. Such competent evidence but judgment lower must be case, of the court follows circuit directions court with versed cause remanded and the It is affirming so commission. enter an order BohUng, CC., concur. Cooley and ordered. C., Westhues, opinion by
PER CURIAM: —The foregoing Alf judges concur. of the court. adopted City al., Defendants, Plaintiff, J. F. Miller et Mis Louis, St. Respondent, Company, Corporation, Life souri State Insurance (2d) 579. Evans, Appellant. M. ne An May 7, Two, 1935.*
Division 1935; 30, September Term, Opinion March motion *NOTE: filed at May 7, filed; May Term, rehearing motion overruled at