Chance v. Industrial Accident Commission

SPENCE, J.

Petitioner seeks to annul the award of the respondent Commission denying his application for compensation.

On March 31, 1932, petitioner was examined at Mount Zion Hospital and advised that he had a bilateral rupture. An operation was performed and thereafter petitioner sought compensation. The evidence showed that in March, 1932, petitioner had gone to his doctor and complained of pain in his abdomen. Petitioner believed that he had appendicitis. He was examined and found to be normal physically. Shortly thereafter he went to another doctor, who

[392]

examined him and gave some prescriptions. In neither instance did petitioner advise the doctor that he had suffered any injury or strain, nor did he complain of any swelling. Neither doctor made any finding of hernia. Petitioner continued his work until March 31, 1932. He made no mention of any injury or strain when examined on that date, but after ascertaining that he had a hernia and being operated upon he thought back to a time early in March' when he was lifting some wet cotton on a fork into a tank and attributed his condition to that incident of lifting the cotton.

Petitioner had been employed by the Pacific Pelt Company for many years. His duties had been practically the same during all of that time. These duties included heavy work, such as lifting wet cotton in the manner above mentioned. He had not at any time reported any injury or strain to his foreman nor had he requested medical attention from his employers. When asked why he had not given the doctors any history of injury, he said, “because I do not absolutely remember the injury. I don’t remember injuring myself. When lifting a pain came there, struck like a knife, but not so severe. I did not associate that with the trouble at all. I thought of appendicitis.” His history taken at the hospital on March 31, 1932, showed that he had been suffering pains in the abdomen “for the past two months ’ ’.

Upon the hearing before the Commission petitioner attempted to show that his condition resulted from a definite injury or strain in the course of his employment. He testified that he felt a pain in his right groin while lifting cotton one afternoon in the early part of March, 1932. He “did not think much of it” and kept on working. He felt no pain in the left groin at that time, but testified that he did experience pain in the left groin a few days later. He made vague reference to a swelling “about that time” and “all during that period”, but it does not appear that he called any swelling to the attention of the doctors who examined him. On leaving work on March 31, 1932, he did not request medical attention from his employer as he “never dreamed it was a rupture”.