*1 May Department One. 25450. 1935.] [No. Department Appellant, The v. Thomas, Maud Respondent.1 George appel- H. and Kenneth for Durham, Crandell lant. Attorney General and Browder Assis- Brown, respondent. for
tant, em a coal mine C. J. Prank Millard, ployee, ex- course of sustained an while in the days employment. later a few He died trahazardous operation. following of his The claim an abdominal rejected pension insurance for an industrial widow department The rea labor and industries. pension given were that for denial of the sons during of em the course of an accident was no husband ployment, of the claimant’s and that death result of an was not the joint hearing resulted in an af- hoard
A before rejecting claim. At that the order firmance of 1Reported (2d) 44 P. 765.
hearing, lay op- seven and the witnesses erated on Thomas testified on behalf claimant. department. Three witnesses testified on behalf of the *2 appealed joint The claimant from the decision of the superior board to the court. submitted cause was upon departmental the certified testi- record and the mony investigators physicians of two four and called department. physicians, as witnesses for the One of the pathologist, a examined the removal after its patient. physician from the The other three witnesses department, apparently not do subscribe to the view that there could be a case of traumatic appendicitis, expressed opinion, their based on a as history of had not occurred case, that the accident length prior for a sufficient of time to the to have caused condition found when operated. he The trial court stated that there was slipped evidence in the record to show that complained, stating he and and that he then fell, thought himself. had slip, he did and that he “The will hold that Court any slipping, and did not do after that he felt sick day. day the next that or further work hospital, where “He taken in to to Seattle operated abdomen, in and a condition his on, he was pus present. filled with and was found fluid, which was attempted anything do for him. He The doctor couldn’t pus out the condition, to drain off this and did take appendix, which was found diseased. question in this case is whether or not “The resulting produced which
evidence shows condition. condition or which accelerated the this “Interpreting testimony, medical course, hampered there the fact that somewhat Court is difficult of technical terms used which are are a lot only pronounce to understand. But but difficult not to accept testimony, path- going I Dr. Baile’s am purulent ologist, there who testifies acute appendicitis. in this testimony the medical to me that
“It seems and that one interpretation, of only susceptible case is fluid in and a condition pus this, this produced by was not which this man’s abdomen may it; call you or whatever accident, slipping, length occurred for a sufficient had not the accident Dr. McKin- which caused the condition of time to have he operated.” found when ney department’s was entered sustaining Judgment has From that the widow rejection. judgment, order of appealed. three are follows: Between two
The facts as an Frank December p. m., 2, 1932, o’clock mine assist- King county, coal in while employee a aup beam employees carry heavy two fellow ing fell to his knees. bunker incline, slipped steep commenced intense immediately pain He to suffer *3 “I workman, a fellow and stated to abdomen, his in think I ruptured think I hurt myself slip —I shack, A he to his few minutes went myself.” later, from the scene feet distant twenty which was about He told in all agony night. of the accident. He was him morn- following of the men who called on the one I fell yesterday.” “I think I hurt when myself ing, after he day accident, the afternoon, the Late that from the coal mine to a automobile in an was taken car from traveled street in He via car line Seattle. informed his He home Seattle. to his that point at mine. hurt the was wife ten nine and summoned between was A physician hospital, taken Providence was to m. The patient p. on was performed operation an abdominal where thirty-three or approximately midnight, Thomas about diagnosed The condition the accident. after hours died December The patient peritonitis. marked as a surgeon operation. after the The days seven 1932, performed operation pa- who the and to whom the stranger, was a in the of death form stated: tient “ in- . . . Accidental the remote canse of death jury working . . . while at coal mine. bunkers at the immediate cause of infec- death Peritonitis and causing appendicitis. tion . obstruction also traumatic very general peritonitis
. . The found advanced when I in har- first saw Mr. Dec. is not 3-32, mony appen- which with an acute case of follows beginning dicitis of natural Hence causes Dec. ’32. I believe the the real received Dec. ’32, beginning of condition the which caused his death.” autopsy performed by per-
An the operation hospital pathologist. formed the an operation, patient’s At the time of the condition the grave exploration was so that no extensive was made permitted to locate the which had infectious escape appendix, to from either intestines bacteria the cavity peritoneal or stomach into the so as to cause autopsy the infection there. Nor was the of value locating perforation or ex- because peritonitis progressed tent to which the had removed and because the embalmer had time death gas from abdominal and fluid viscera. At the autopsy, impossible determine it was time of puncture as the had been a result of whether there pathological examination of the which disclosed a at the time was removed of a chronic inflammation of indicative the. condition and must have antedated time, for some *4 although injury, of it. The was not aware Thomas covered with the exudate inflamed and so was peritoneal it pus, that concealed tissue, like the and appendix. perforation any rupture of the prior the appears or four weeks ac- three that, It temporary a in- trouble, had stomach cident, con- it is food, from improper caused disposition evidently was that appellant for by ceded counsel ap- of the inflammation chronic painless a preexisting of the exact location that the It true quite is pendix. even established, It also not found. is rupture witnesses, medical respondent’s of by testimony the be full can abdomen that from a virulent infection the es- is also It of fluid in a time as six hours. as short usually are acute attacks tablished the evidence that by ato prior by excruciating agony manifested if the peritonitis that, without trauma. clear quite It is Thomas could to the accident, had commenced prior fell, time his labor until not have continued at of complaining pain. evidence or showing without on operation surgeon performed chronic accelerate that trauma can Thomas testified of a or perforation and cause a rupture appendicitis definitely He expressed appendix. weakened diseased the real be- received injury opinion of the death which caused of the condition ginning Thomas. clear the appendix
The evidence is in course of time would have Thomas was diseased It just external as pressure. without reputable of the testimony under clear of that who performed accelerated sustained medical ad experts of Respondent’s Thomas. One from resulting slipping blow possibly mitted that falling would cause a rup timber and heavy awith three medical experts The other appendix. ture to admit that unwilling ap seemed department from trauma. result could pendicitis Department Shadbolt v. In held that: 209 Pac. we Wash.
g88 though
“Even was diseased and in the course of time would have ex- without pressure, by ternal if its was accelerated such ’’ pressure, would this constitute an approval That case was cited with v. De Clark partment 230 256, Wash. of Pac. 133. ample competent
There is evidence to sustain position appellant of fell and sustained rupture. question by respondent a specting Some is raised re admissibility of of some that evidence. Any question admissibility as to the of that evidence holding Depart is foreclosed our v. McKinnie ment Labor and Industries, 179 Wash. of (2d) P. hence we refrain from of discussion question. Appellant sustained the burden of the accident suffered Thomas caused or accelerated intestines and that his death resulted therefrom. judgment with reversed, direction to the su- appellant
perior remand claim court to to re- spondent with instructions allow the same. concur. JJ.,
Main, Geraghty, Beals, (dissenting) my opinion, the evi- J. —In Tolman, findings preponderate against dence does not judgment court, should be the trial therefore affirmed.