Walker's Case, 137 N.E. 171 (Mass. 1922). · Go Syfert
Search
Walker's Case, 137 N.E. 171 (Mass. 1922). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
7 citation events across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Therrien's Case (massappct, 1974-03-04)
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Therrien's Case
Mass. App. Ct. · 1974 · signal: see · confidence high
See Brightman’s Case, 220 Mass. 17, 20 (1914). (“Acceleration of previously existing heart disease to a mortal end sooner than otherwise it would have come is an injury within the meaning of the workmen’s compensation act.”) See also Walker’s Case, 243 Mass. 224, 225-226 (1922). (2) The trial judge found that “there was no evidence in the record showing that the insurer was not prejudiced by [the late claim] . . ..” “While the burden was upon the employee to prove that the insurer was not prejudiced by the delay in filing his claim, that burden might be sustained by a warrantab…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
William Walker's (dependent's) Case
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.
Dec 1, 1922.
137 N.E. 171
1922 Mass. LEXIS 1069
L. J. MacNab, for the insurer., J. H. Drew, for the claimant.
Pierce.
Cited by 7 opinions  |  Published
Pierce, J.

The deceased, while employed as an elevator operator, on September 20, 1919, on opening the door to an elevator well fell down the well seven feet below the first floor by reason of the fact that some one had taken the elevator away from that floor. An examination at his home disclosed a dislocation or fracture of the right shoulder. He was taken to the City Hospital where he remained five days and then returned to his home. He was unable to work when he returned from the hospital or at any time before his death on August 13, 1921.

The Industrial Accident Board on review accepted and adopted the rulings and findings of the board member, and found that the personal injury received by the employee on September 20, 1919, arose out of and in the course of his employment, that the injury received “accelerated a pre-existing condition to such an extent as to bring about the death of the employee sooner than it otherwise would have occurred,” that the “fall and injury of September 20, 1919, influenced adversely the aneurysm of the aorta from which the employee died on August 13, 1921; and that the widow of the employee is entitled to compensation.”

The only question presented on appeal by the insurer from a decree of the Superior Court, entered in accordance with the finding of the Industrial Accident Board, St. 1911, c. 751, Part III, § 11, as amended by St. 1912, c. 571, § 14 (see now G. L. c. 152, § 11), is whether there is any reasonable evidence to support the finding of the Industrial Accident Board that there is a causal connection between the injury and death of the employee. Pigeon’s Case, 216 Mass. 51.

We think the testimony of the impartial physician, “that such a fall as the deceased had may have been and with a certain probability was a contributory cause to his death occurring from hemothorax and aneurysm of the aorta,” is not obnoxious to the criticism of the insurer that it expresses the guess, the fancy, the conjecture and the imagination of the witness, but is the cautious declaration of an opinion which is based upon disputed and dis[*226] putable facts and conclusions of fact. A careful examination of all the testimony leads to the conclusion that a reasonable man might adopt the opinion of the impartial physician and find a causalrconneetion between the injury and death. In such case the finding of the Industrial Accident Board must stand. Pass’s Case, 232 Mass. 515. Chisholm’s Case, 238 Mass. 412, 419.

Decree affirmed.