Daugherty v. Indus. Accident Comm'n

SHENK, J. This is a proceeding to review an order of the respondent commission denying disability indemnity and [768]a death benefit to the petitioners as surviving widow and daughter of Charles H. Daugherty, deceased.

Daugherty was employed as a helper at an oil-well plant in Long Beach. On August 24, 1931, in the course of his employment, he was descending a stairway when within a step or two from the bottom he was seen by a workman on an adjoining property, Hawley by name, to stumble and fall backward. He did not arise quickly so Hawley went to him. When he got to his side Daugherty was standing. Hawley took him by the arm, helped him to walk a short distance, when he sat down on a bench. Daugherty seemed dazed but said he thought he was all right, whereupon Hawley departed to resume his own work and did not see the deceased again. No wound or other traumatic conditions were observed by Hawley except that one of Daugherty’s fingers was bleeding. Apparently Daugherty was a night workman, for the accident occurred at 7 o’clock in the morning, and his wife testified that he came home about 7 that morning and that this was his usual time of arrival.

On arriving at his home he went to bed as usual but got up in about an hour complaining of a terrible headache. About noon of that day he had a convulsion. These spells recurred until, on September 6, 1931, he was, on the affidavit of his wife, taken to the psychopathic ward of the general hospital, where his trouble was diagnosed as probable cerebral thrombosis. He remained in the hospital for about ten days after which he went home, returning to the hospital every few days for treatment. He was discharged from the hospital on September -25th, and on October 15th went with his wife to his former home in Texas. In Texas he was unable to walk without assistance, the convulsions recurred, he gradually became worse and died in Texas on January 22, 1932. The certificate of the attending physician noted “epilepsia caused by clog on brain” as the cause of death.

Upon a full and extensive record of the evidence, both lay and professional, the commission found that it did not establish either that Daugherty’s disability or his death was caused, aggravated or accelerated by any injury sustained by him, or by reason of his employment. The controversy hinges on whether there is substantial evidence to support the findings.

[769]