STATE OF MICHIGAN

INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT BOARD.

DECISIONS AND OPINIONS OF THE BOARD IN WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION CASES WITH THE DECISIONS AND OPINIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT IN ALL ADJUDGED CASES.

HERNIA RESULT OF ACCIDENT OR DISEASE.

Applicant was employed as driver by respondent in its coal mine. The cars driven by him ran on tracks and were frequently liable to jump off. When this occurred, it was the duty of the driver to get the car back on the track. While attempting to lift a car back onto the track, applicant suffered a strain which resulted in an inguinal hernia. He was awarded compensation for four weeks, by an arbitration committee, together with hospital and medical expenses. The question involved is, whether the hernia should be classed as an accident within the meaning of the Compensation Act.

HELD: 1. That although the strain was received while in the performance of applicant's ordinary work, it was the result of an extraordinary exertion and therefore should be classed as an accident within the meaning of the Act.

2. That before the workman is entitled to compensation in

case of hernia, it must be shown to have the essentials of an accidental injury, and it must arise out of the work, as from a strain or some other occurence. Hernia occurring without any strain and without the elements that are necessary to constitute an accident would not come within the meaning of the law.

Appeal of What Cheer Coal Company from the decision of an arbitration committee awarding compensation to Archibald Scott for an injury sustained by him while in respondent's employ. At the hearing of this cause on review a general invitation was extended to all interested in the subject of hernia to participate in such hearing and file briefs. The case was exhaustively argued and a large number of able briefs filed, the purpose of the general hearing being to consider and determine the status of hernia cases under the Workmen's Compensation Law. It was contended on behalf of respondent that hernia should be classed as an accident only in a few rare cases.

Opinion by the Board:

The applicant, Archibald Scott, was employed as a driver by respondent in its coal mine, and as such it was his duty to drive trains of coal cars drawn by mules through the various passages and entries of the mine, the cars running on an iron track. It was quite a common occurrence for one or more of such cars to jump the track, and in such case it was the duty of the driver to get the car back on to the track and proceed with his trip. Each of the empty cars weighed about one thousand pounds. On March 23, 1914, while the applicant was so employed, one of the cars left the track and became wedged in between the transfer rail and the straight rail of the track. Applicant attempted to lift the car back on to the track and while so doing felt a strain in the abdomen. pained him for a few minutes and then seemed to go away. That night when changing his clothes at the wash shanty he noticed a small swelling, which turned out to be an inguinal hernia. He went back to work on the following day, which was Tuesday, and continued working until Friday night when

It

he went to a doctor for an examination. The last two days that he worked it distressed him considerably. On Saturday he reported the matter to the company and on the following day submitted to an operation which was successful and resulted in a complete cure. The arbitration committee awarded the applicant compensation for four weeks, together with hospital and medical expenses. The applicant testified that he noticed the pain directly at the time he was lifting on the car while trying to replace it on the track, that he examined himself when he went to the wash-house that evening and found the swelling, and that it increased in size during the three or four days following until he went to a doctor. He further testified that in replacing a car on the track it was necessary to lift with all his might. That prior to lifting on the day in question there was no swelling or appearance of hernia.

At the time of rehearing of this case, a general invitation was given to those interested in the general subject of hernia to participate in the rehearing and to file briefs. The case was exhaustively argued and a number of able briefs filed, the purpose of the general hearing being to consider and determine in a general way the status of hernia cases under the Workmen's Compensation Law.

It is contended that putting derailed cars back upon the track is a part of the ordinary work of a driver, and that a hernia resulting from the applicant's ordinary work is not an accident within the meaning of the law. It is also contended that inguinal hernia in a large majority of cases is not the result of accident, but comes from bodily weakness which is usually congenital. These claims were strenuously urged and have been given careful consideration and investigation by the Board.

In the opinion of the Board it is fairly shown that the applicant, while exerting himself to replace the car upon the track, sustained a strain which produced the hernia; that he was not subjected to any external violence; and that the hernia was brought on by lifting on the car, something which

he was frequently required to do in the course of his work. We do not think the mere fact that the strain was received in performing his ordinary work makes the occurrence any less an accident. Almost the precise question was under consideration in the case of Clover, Clayton & Company vs. Hughes, by the House of Lords, 3 B. W. C. C. 275, the date of the decision being March 14, 1910. The alleged accident in that case was the rupture of an aneurism while the employe was engaged in doing his ordinary work, and it was contended that because nothing unusual happened in connection with his work that it was not an accident within the meaning of the British Workmen's Compensation Law. We quote from the prevailing opinions in the above case:

"I do not think that we should attach any importance to the fact that there was no strain or exertion out of the ordinary. * * * * If the degree of exertion beyond what is usual had to be considered in these cases, there must be some standard of exertion, varying in every trade. Nor do I think we should attach any importance to the fact that this man's health was as described. If the state of his health had to be considered, there must be some standard of health, varying, I suppose, with men of different ages. An accident arises out of the employment when the required exertion producing the accident is too great for the man undertaking the work, whatever the degree of exertion or the condition of health."

Again we quote from opinion on page 280:

"Certainly it was an 'untoward event.' It was not designed. It was unexpected in what seems to me the relevant sense, namely, that a sensible man who knew the nature of the work would not have expected it. I cannot agree with the argument presented to your Lordships that you are to ask whether a doctor acquainted with the man's condition would have expected it. Were that the right view then it would not be an accident if a man very liable to fainting fits fell in a faint from a ladder and hurt himself. No doubt the ordinary accident is associated with something external; the bursting of a boiler, or an explosion in a mine, for example. But it may be merely from the man's own miscalculation, such as tripping and falling. Or it may be due both to internal and external conditions, as if a seaman were to faint in the rigging and tumble into the sea. I think it may also be something going wrong within the human frame itself, such