Bethlehem Steel Co. v. Jones

Brune, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Bethlehem Steel Company (Bethlehem), employer and self-insurer, appeals from a judgment of the Circuit Court for Baltimore County affirming an award made by the Workmen’s Compensation Commission (the Commission) in favor of the appellee, claimant and widow of Walter Scott Jones, because of the death of the latter while in the employ of Bethlehem. The case was heard by the court, sitting without a jury, on the evidence presented before the Commission. The question is the legal sufficiency of the evidence to show that the employee died as a result of an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of his employment.

The case presents no novel question of law. For the claimant to recover there must be legally sufficient evidence to show that the death was due to an accidental cause arising out of and in the course of employment, Robertson v. North American Refractories Co., 169 Md. 187, 189 , 181 A. 223 ; Perdue v. Brittingham, 186 Md. 393, 401-403 , 47 A. 2d 491 , and cases therein cited; and the burden of proof is on the claimant, Hathcock v. Loftin, 179 Md. 676, 679 , 22 A. 2d 479 ; Reeves Motor Co. v. Reeves, 204 Md. 576, 579 , 105 A. 2d 236 . Slipping and falling while at work clearly constitute an accident, and injury resulting therefrom is compensable. Townsend Grace Co. v. Ackerman, 158 Md. 34 , 148 A. 122 .

The decision of the Commission is prima facie correct, Code (1957), Art. 101, sec. 56 (c); Stewart & Co. v. Howell, 136 Md. 423 , 110 A. 899 ; and if there is any evidence from which a rational conclusion to support the claim may be drawn the weight and value of that evidence must be left to the trier of the facts, and it is not the function of this Court to determine the comparative weight of conflicting evidence. Stancliff v. H. B. Davis Co., 208 Md. 191, 197 , 117 A. 2d 577 ; Reeves Motor Co. v. Reeves, supra. The burden of proof may be sustained by reasonable inferences having a substan ⁵⁸ tial basis in circumstantial evidence where, as in this case, there are no eyewitnesses through whose testimony direct proof of an accidental injury might be furnished. Spencer v. Chesapeake Paperboard Co., 186 Md. 522, 527 , 47 A. 2d 385 ; Krell v. Maryland Drydock Co., 184 Md. 428 , 41 A. 2d 502 ; Southern Can Co. v. Sachs, 149 Md. 562 , 131 A. 760 .

It is not necessary for the claimant to prove the exact cause of death. S. Rosenbloom, Inc. v. Willingham, 190 Md. 552, 558 , 59 A. 2d 311 . Proof that an accident was the proximate cause of injury or death must show that the result could have been caused by the accident and that no other efficient cause has intervened between the accident and the result; and the proof must rise above a mere guess or speculation. Reeves Motor Co. v. Reeves, supra, 204 Md. at 581 .

On the other hand, absolute certainty in expert medical testimony is not required. Baughman Contracting Co. v. Mellott, 216 Md. 278, 283 , 139 A. 2d 852 ; Bethlehem-Sparrows Point Shipyard, Inc. v. Scherpenisse, 187 Md. 375, 383-4 , 50 A. 2d 256 . Cf. Twombley v. Fuller Brush Co., 221 Md. 476 , 158 A. 2d 110 .

Whether medical opinion testimony is conclusive or not depends upon the facts of each particular case. Paul Construction Co. v. Powell, 200 Md. 168, 180-181 , 88 A. 2d 837 . The appellant states as the Maryland Rule that “an injury is accidental only when it results from some unusual strain or exertion or some unusual condition in the employment,” citing Rieger v. Washington Suburban Sanitary Comm., 211 Md. 214, 216 , 126 A. 2d 598 , Kelly-Springfield Tire Co. v. Daniels, 199 Md. 156, 161 , 85 A. 2d 795 . Probably because in the instant case the appellant regards pneumonia as the established cause of death, it fails to refer to the circumstances under which that rule applies—that there be a sudden and unexpected rupture or failure of some portion of the internal structure of the body or the failure of some essential function of the body, even without any external happening of an accidental nature.

It does not apply where injury or death results from a fall or a similar accident. See Stancliff v. H. B. Davis Co., supra, 208 Md. at 199 . In Jackson v. Ferree, 173 Md. 400 , 196 A. 107 , and in Kelly-Springfield Tire Co. v. Daniels, ⁵⁹ supra, both cited in Stancliff , it was pointed out (as the reference to these cases in Stancliff shows) that the claimant did not slip or fall. The same was true in the later case of Rieger cited by the appellant.

(See 211 Md. at 215 .) There is no dispute about many of the facts in this case. The decedent had been employed by Bethlehem for about thirteen years and had a generally good work and health record. He had had one lobe of his left lung removed by surgery in 1953 following an attack of pneumonia; and he had later sustained an injury and had also had a brief illness, neither of which had any apparent bearing on this case. His job was to shovel limestone out of the bottom of hopper cars placed on a trestle over a bin or pit.

To do so, he had to stand with one foot on the sloping bottom of the car and the other on a cross-bar or cross-piece between the two openings through which the limestone was