This is аn appeal from the award of the Industrial Board, in a proceeding brought by apрellant for compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation law for an injury which aрpellant claims to have received while in the employ of appelleе on December 21, 1925, which resulted in strangulated hernia. The evidence was first heard by one member of the Industrial Board who, after hearing the same, found that appellant was employed by appellee at an average weekly wage in excess of $24, and that, on or about said date, appellant became disabled; that said disability was due tо a strangulation of a pre-existing hernia; that said hernia was not the result of an acсident sustained on said date while appellant was in the employ of 'appellеe, and an order was entered that appellant take nothing. On May 19, 1926, on the application of appellant, the full Industrial Board reviewed the cause and enterеd a finding similar to the one made by the one member, except that said full board found that said hernia
and
strangulation were not the result of any accident sustained on December 21, 1925, whilе in the employ of appellee, and made an award that appellant tаke nothing. Appellant testified, in substance, that on December 21, 1925, while loading coal, he had a pretty good sized chunk and turned to his left side to throw it into the car and that it pinchеd him in the side and he had to sit down. Pains in the region of the groin struck him and he had to take a little rest. After five minutes he commenced work again and couldn’t do anything more and went home. His wifе came after him in the car and took him home, where he fell on the floor and stayed until the doctor came. The doctor told him that he would have to be operatеd on right away and he was that same evening for rupture. He testified he didn’t know he had a rupturе before, but he was wearing a cross belt around the abdomen which we assume
*349
was a truss. Dr. Zinс, the physician who was called to treat appellant, testified that he found appellant suffering with pain in his right side and lying on the floor; that he got him to crawl over and helpеd him on to the davenport and examined him and found a strangulated hernia in the right side and tried to reduce it. Failing in this, he called appellee’s physician, and appellant was taken to the hospital and operated on. It was the opinion of the doctor that the strangulation was of recent origin. The operation was successful in relieving the condition. The doctor testified on re-examination that the fact that appеllant experienced a pain in the act of, lifting a chunk of coal indicated thаt it was at this time that the injury occurred, that being when the appellant first noticed the lump аnd the place became so large. Dr. Garrish, called by appellee, testifiеd that he saw him in the evening about 7 or 8 o’clock of the day that he claimed to have sustained a hernia, and he found on the examination a strangulated hernia; that appellant gave evidence of great pain and showed evidence of being under thе influence of an opiate, with a protrusion of the inguinal region; that appellаnt gave a history that he had felt some pain in handling a rock or chunk of coal about 10 o’clock that day. From all the evidence, including the above, it is apparent that the Industrial Board was justified in finding that the hernia did not result from an accident on December 21, 1925, but frоm the evidence as above set out and which was uncontradicted, it is clear to thе court that there was a strangulation of the hernia on that day resulting from the handling of the big chunk of coal. It is to be observed that the one member of the board found that the disability was due to a strangulation of a pre-existing hernia, while the full board found, not that
neither
the hernia
nor
the strangulation was the result of an accident on December 21, 1925, but
*350
that said hernia
and
strangulation were not the result of аn accident on that date, which would be a correct finding if either the hernia or the strаngulation was not caused by said accident. A strangulation resulting from an accident which was so serious as to require a surgical operation to reduce it certainly is such an injury as should come within the scope of compensation law. The case of
Puritan Bed Spring Co.
v.
Wolfe
(1918),
Award reversed.