198 Iowa 922 | Iowa | 1924
— Appellee contends that deceased was injured Monday morning, December 20, 1920, while in the course of his employment. He died Saturday, December 25th. Appellee says that the injury was the cause of his death, or at least that the death was accelerated by the injury. No one saw the accident. The fact of the injury may be shown circumstantially. Appellee sought to show this by declarations by deceased, and by complaints and other circumstances. It was contended by appellants that all such statements were hearsay, properly objected to, and that there is no legal evidence to establish the fact; while appellee contends that the statements were such as that they were paid of the res gestae, and that the evidence taken as a whole is sufficient to establish her claim, — or at least, to make a conflict so that the finding of the committee and commissioner may not be questioned by the court.
1. Appellants state, substantially, that the big' question in the case is whether or not death resulted from an accident. We do not understand appellants to question appellee’s claim that the accident and injury, if such there were, arose out of and in the course of the employment. It is necessary to set out the evidence to some extent. This we shall dó as briefly as may be, stating the substance of it. Some fifteen or sixteen witnesses were used for plaintiff, and five or six for the defendants.
It is plaintiff’s claim that deceased was injured by falling from a platform; that he fell to the floor, six or eight feet below, striking the part of his body near the heart upon a block of wood
Plaintiff says that, when her husband left home that morning, he was in his usual health; that, when he returned that evening, she noticed that there was something wrong; that he could not stoop down; that he complained of having been hurt, and of pain; that he was holding his side; that he was very careful of his movements, and uneasy; that she saw that his side "was discolored, with streaks of red; that she put bandages over his side, where it was hurt; that, he continued to hold his side and complain of pain from that time until the last time she saw him alive, Saturday morning; that the bandages she put on-were not removed until after death.
Another employee, Edmundson, whose- work was on the fourth floor, says that, in going to his work, he had to pass the station where deceased was employed. On this Monday morning, witness had just been to the storeroom for a can of oil, and was going up the stairs. It was just at the time he was going to work, and he passed Farrow’s station on the way to his own. He was attracted by Farrow’s condition; spoke to Farrow, and stopped, because he noticed him leaning against the conveyor. When he first saw deceased, he (deceased) was leaning against the conveyor, holding his hand on his left side, over the region of his heart. His expression showed that he was suffering pain, and was in distress. At this time, Farrow told witness that he went to pull a lever to set the machinery going, and he fell and hit himself on a stick of wood. Deceased said: ‘11 got up to the
Another witness testifies that, the morning of the accident, he was informed by some of the men that deceased had had a fall. Witness went to Farrow’s station. Farrow appeared excited and fidgety. Deceased told witness he had slipped and fallen; that his foot slipped, and pushed the ladder out, and he fell; that he “fell on that stick of wood,” which witness thinks was a 2x4 or a 4x4. Witness says there were some 6x6’s or 8x8’s lying on the floor. Witness says that deceased was excited a little when he went up to him.
Other witnesses testify to complaints made by deceased of his condition at different times, as they observed him, between Monday and Saturday. One says that, when Farrow went to move, he held his side, and appeared to be suffering pain; that he complained that his side hurt him; that his condition was worse on Friday than on the former day when she was there. Another witness says he appeared to be worn out with pain; that he was sitting in a chair, and it seemed almost too much for him to talk; that he said he did not think he would get over it. Another witness says that, on Thursday evening, deceased appeared to be restless and in much distress; that he would move from chair to chair, and hold his left side and wince, as though suffering pain. Another witness observed him holding his hand over his left side over the region of his heart. This witness says that he
We think the statements of deceased made to Edmundson were a part of the fes gestae. True, the length of time which elapsed was not definitely given, but it must have been very soon after the fall. It was at the very place of the accident, and when deceased was nervous, excited, and suffering pain. The declarations were-so near in point of time to the principal transaction as to clearly appear to be spontaneous, unpremeditated, and free from sinister motives. The rule as stated is the rule of the cases cited by appellant. As said in some of. the cases so cited, it is not so much a question of what the rule is, but the application of the rule to the facts in a particular case. Keyes v. City of Cedar
2. An award of compensation may be made although there was pre-existing heart disease, if the disease was aggravated and accelerated by an accidental injury. Hanson v. Dickinson, 188 Iowa 728; 19 A. L. R. 96, note; 20 A. L. R. 4, note. We do not understand appellants to dispute the legal proposition. In this ease, it is a question of fact. Appellants contend that the death was the result of heart disease, or aortic stenosis, alone; and that the accident had nothing to do with it. The claim is that the evidence is undisputed. In this we cannot concur. It is necessary to set out some further evidence bearing on this question. There is evidence tending to show that deceased was 64 years of age, 5 feet 7 or 8 inches tall, well proportioned, with square shoulders and ordinary flesh. A number of witnesses testify to their acquaintance with him of from 25 to 30 years, and that he always seemed to be a man of good health. Witnesses had never noticed any marked change in his condition from year to year, and no marked difference in his weight. He had worked for the defendant for about five years, and commanded top wages. He was a steady worker. He had been employed in the work of feeding the press for a few months. Prior to that, he was engaged in the clay pit, where he loaded and scooped the mined clay into the ear. He had also been employed in the clay shed, where his work consisted of shoveling clay into wheelbarrows and wheeling it to the conveyor. Prior to that, he had been a coal miner most of his life, engaged in the actual digging of coal. His wife testifies that he had miner’s asthma, but that she had never noticed any signs of shortness of breath, except when he was working underneath, in the coal mines. Other witnesses give similar testimony, and" say that they had never known of his being sick; that he looked healthy and robust; that he did heavy work. It may be conceded that de
Dr. Rayner, testifying for defendant, says substantially that he examined deceased in August, 1918.
“Discovered that he had valvular heart trouble, — aortic stenosis. May have examined him before that, but could find no record of it. He came to my office several years ago, — a good many years ago, — about some stomach trouble, and I discovered heart trouble at that time. The aortic stenosis was just the same each time; noticed no change. His heart was always regular ; it was compensating; the pulse was all right. I never treated him especially for heart trouble; treated him a little for the flu. At that time, I examined his heart, as a matter, of precaution. His heart was compensating as it always had done, just the same. The condition of aortic stenosis in no way interfered with the regularity of the heart. It would not be expected that a man who had done hard physical work for years, and had this trouble for years, and went on doing heavy manual labor, that he would die of heart trouble when he was doing light work or no work. That would be very unhsual. It is the irregular heart that causes sudden death. I'believe such a fall would make a regular heart turn to one that was irregular. It would be more likely to injure a man that had aortic stenosis than a man who was perfectly strong and sound. Stenosis is a condition where there is lack of tone to the valve of the heart; where the valves fail to close with each contraction. That condition is sometimes followed by what is known as angina pectoris, and in' that, there is a great possibility of it ending in death.”
Another doctor testifies:
“Aorta stenosis, as generally understood, is a contraction of the aorta and the warping of the aortic valves by adhesions from previous inflammation. It is- an inflammatory process that affects the aorta, and lesions of that- kind are the result. An examination often shows that the inflammatory process extends high up into the aorta. The walls of the aorta and the edge of the valves are attacked by bacteria, causing inflammation and roughening of the walls and a shriveling or contract*929 ing, and on tlie edge of tlie valves on the walls where this inflammation has been set up, there forms a lime deposit, which is frequently broken from the edges of the valves as the out-rush of blood takes place. This condition could exist with aorta stenosis. It is quite possible for people having aorta stenosis to die from some other disease altogether. As long as the heart compensates and is regular, you would not expect sudden death from aorta stenosis. The thing that might cause sudden death is breaking off of deposits of lime or fibrin and its injection into the coronary arteries. As to what would cause them to break off, we presume that takes place when the blood goes back and forth with the impulse of the heart when it is forced out in a jet or wave and when it reacts back, those things can be broken off. It is very natural to expect that this is more apt to happen in exertion than in a quiet condition. In a party who has stenosis, the heart must compensate. • This comes about by an increase in the muscles of the heart. The man you describe, and doing the work which deceased did, I would say that his heart was compensating all right. Falling on a block of wood and striking in the region of the heart might affect the heart in two ways: there would be a certain shock to this region; stops the action of the heart for a moment, and that causes a clogging of the larger vessels with blood. When the heart again resumes action, it will put a strain upon the heart. If a man had a disease of that kind, a shock over the, heart would be more likely to injure him. We do not have a sudden death from aorta stenosis where there is compensation of the heart. That is unusual. Something must • interfere with the nutrition or the nerve control. When a man’s heart is compensating, he can perform his ordinary labor. If his heart was not compensating, it would appear on the deceased.”
There was other medical testimony. The doctors seem to agree that, as long as the heart is compensating and regular, you would not expect sudden death. One of them says that a man might have valvular leakage and the heart would go on and be regular for years, and the same is true of one having aortic stenosis, “as long as the nerve centers of the heart act regular, there would not be any danger;”.that, as long as the
This is but a synopsis of the testimony on this subject; but we think it is sufficient to sustain plaintiff’s claim, and the finding of the committee and commissioner.
The judgment is — Affirmed.