though the undersigned had lost a foot in which case he could have had recourse to an artificial limb and gone on with some employment. As it now stands he is entirely disabled and denies that the petitioner is entitled to the relief asked.' The Board found from the evidence and the inspection of the injured limb that this claim was sustained. While no parts of the body except the foot and ankle in question are affected, the condition is such as to prevent the use of an artificial limb or appliance and to disable Mr. Bruce from following his customary employment. Such condition so far has prevented him from following any employment. In the opinion of the Board the refusal of the defendant to submit to the proposed operation, referred to in the petition, was not so unreasonable as to justify the stopping of his compensation, the operation being a serious one and the result doubtful."

OSTRANDER, J. (After stating the facts):

If claimant is totally disabled, his compensation must continue to be paid, not for longer than 500 weeks. Plaintiffs in certiorari argue that it is anomalous that he should be permitted to recover for a period greater than the one fixed for the total loss of his foot, and it is suggested that the statute, section 10, be construed to mean for the loss of a foot, or what is equivalent thereto.

Section 9 and the applicable parts of section 10, of Part II, of Act No. 10, Public Acts, Extra Session, 1912, read:

"Sec. 9. While the incapacity for work resulting from the injury is total, the employer shall pay, or cause to be paid as hereinafter provided, to the injured employe a weekly compensation equal to onehalf his average weekly wages, but not more than ten dollars nor less than four dollars a week; and in no case shall the period covered by such compensation be greater than five hundred weeks, nor shall the total amount of all compensation exceed four thousand dollars.

"Sec. 10. While the incapacity for work resulting from the injury is partial, the employer shall pay, or cause to be paid as hereinafter provided, to the injured employe a weekly compensation equal to onehalf the difference between his average weekly wages before the injury and the average weekly wages which he is able to earn thereafter, but not more than ten dollars a week; and in no case shall the period covered by such compensation be greater than three hundred weeks from the date of the injury. In cases included by the following schedule the disability in each such case shall be deemed to continue

for the period specified, and the compensation so paid for such injury shall be as specified therein, to-wit:

*

"For the loss of a foot, fifty per centum of average weekly wages during one hundred and twenty-five weeks;"

The Board has found that claimant's incapacity for work is total. It would seem that the finding might well have been that his incapacity is partial only, thus limiting payments to 300 weeks, in view of claimant's admission that he had not tried to work since receiving his injury, nor sought any employment other than such as requires him to stand on his feet. However, I think there is some testimony tending to support the finding. We cannot by construction of the statute make a case of partial incapacity for work when the fact is found that the incapacity is total.

The conclusion of the Board will not be disturbed.

MICHIGAN WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION
MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,

Respondents and Appellants.

HERNIA-HELD PERSONAL INJURY BY ACCIDENT.

Claimant suffered a hernia from exertion in trying to raise a window in the factory where he was employed. The evidence and facts are reviewed in the opinion in detail, the Court holding that the hernia so received constituted a personal injury by accident within the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Law.

Certiorari to the Industrial Accident Board to review an award in favor of claimant on account of a hernia. Affirmed.

R. A. Colwell, of Ionia, for claimant.

Beaumont, Smith & Harris, of Detroit, for respondents.

KUHN, J. The claimant has been awarded compensation under Act 10, P. A., 1912. The award was made in the first instance by a committee of arbitration, and was approved by the Industrial Accident Board, and that decision is brought to this court by certiorari, for a review of the findings.

The substance of the testimony which bears on the alleged accident is that the claimant was employed by the respondent in work on automobile bodies which required frequent lifting of them; that on May 29, 1914, the window of the room where he was working had been put down during a storm, and had swollen enough to make it stick; after the storm had ceased, Bell put it up again, and it required considerable exertion. He testified that after lifting the window he "felt

something come down that felt quite painful;" that "when I felt the pain after lifting the window, I went to the toilet and found a lump there. The lump was about like an

營

*

egg. It was on my right groin. I never noticed the lump before."

This happened at 4 o'clock. He continued to work, lifting bodies, until 5:30 o'clock, closing time. On his way home he felt faint, and complained to his wife of an inclination to vomit. When asked whether he noticed any condition that made him think he had hernia, he said:

"It came down Friday night. I got it back Saturday, and Sunday it stayed in place. On Monday when I went to work, it came out again."

He did not work Saturday and Sunday, but returned to his usual work on Monday, and suffered pain all day. When he reached home that night, the doctor was called, and after some effort reduced the hernia. An operation proved necessary, and was performed, and the claimant was disabled for 10 weeks. Compensation was awarded him for that period at $6.92 per week, in addition to medical and hospital expenses for 3 weeks, the period of his confinement.

Among the several points relied upon by respondents for a disallowance of the claim, the one most extensively discussed is that the injury did not result from an accident. The argument goes upon the theory that a hernia is the result, "not of a single fortuitous event, but either of the anatomical defect of the claimant or of the long continued lifting for a number of months;" that hernia is the result of a very gradual process; that it is not an accident, but a disease. Medical authorities are quoted from, and the testimony of expert wit nesses presented, to substantiate the theory. But whether this theory is correct or not, the argument is disposed of by the decision in the recent case of Robbins v. Original Gas Engine Co., 23 D. L. N. 142. There is evidence that the claimant felt a pain in the groin after raising the window, and

discovered a hernial protuberance immediately afterward. He continued to work, and "both lifting the window and lifting the body caused this pain. I was pulling up the window when the pain came on, and also when I lifted the body." The work on Monday, after he had "got the hernia back," caused more pain, and brought it down again, so that the physician had difficulty reducing it. It is clear that the committee and the Board were justified in finding that the hernia was pushed through and made so acute by the lifting of the window as to disable the claimant. See La Veck v. Parke, Davis & Co., 23 D. L. N. 13. Such an injury entitled the claimant to compensation. See Skinner v. Commercial Travelers' Mutual Accident Association, 23 D. L. N. 121; Robbins v. Original Gas Engine Co., supra.

The respondents offered in evidence the report of Dr. Knapp, who attended the claimant, in which it was stated:

"Patient says for 2 or 3 weeks been having pain in groin, and that while closing a window at factory felt strain which in 2 or 3 days resulted in strangulated hernia."

It was presented in connection with the following testimony of Dr. Knapp:

"I would call it a perfectly fresh puncture. It was evidence to me that the hernia was caused as claimed. Indications are to the effect that the act of putting up the window and lifting the body from the work bench caused the bowel to go through and form a sac.

"I believe, as near as I can tell, he had no rupture before, and he had it afterwards. The preponderance of evidence seems to show that it came on at that time as the result of his work.

"Mr. Smith: Dr. Knapp, did he say anything to you about having had a pain in his side previous to this?

"Dr. Knapp: Afterwards I asked him how long he had had it, and he said he did not know anything about it; on Saturday he lifted the window and the body, and felt it come on him then.

"Mr. Smith: You reported to the Insurance Company, 'Patient says for two or three weeks been having pain in groin.' Is that so, Mr. Bell? "Mr. Bell: I don't remember saying that.

"Mr. Smith: The report was made June 9th; where do you suppose the doctor got that idea?

"Mr. Bell: I might have told him that. I have tried to be honorable