O'Donnell's Case

133 N.E. 621, 237 Mass. 164, 1921 Mass. LEXIS 1181
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedJanuary 7, 1921
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 133 N.E. 621 (O'Donnell's Case) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
O'Donnell's Case, 133 N.E. 621, 237 Mass. 164, 1921 Mass. LEXIS 1181 (Mass. 1921).

Opinion

De Courcy, J.

The issue as framed before the single member of the Industrial Accident Board, and before the board on review, is: “whether the employee’s death was caused by lead poisoning suffered in his employment by the subscriber.” The decision of the single member, affirmed and adopted by the board, is as follows: “Upon the evidence in this case I find that the cause of the employee’s death on June 26,1918, was sclerosis of the coronary arteries and this sclerosis was caused by the accumulative effects of the lead which was being constantly assimilated into his system up to the time that the final assimilation caused his death. I find that this assimilation of lead occurred during his employment as a painter, [plumber] resulting from the use of lead in his employment, and that the final assimilation which caused his death occurred during his employment with the subscriber in this case.”

As in the analogous case of the verdict of a jury or the finding of a judge in an action at law, this finding is conclusive if it has a substantial support in the evidence. Uzzio’s Case, 228 Mass. 331. We are of opinion that there was evidence to warrant it. The claimant testified that the employee had worked as a plumber since he was twelve years of age and that he was thirty-nine years of age when he died. The family physician testified that for the last few years he had treated O’Donnell “for what he supposed was lead poisoning.” The expert, after reviewing the history and symptoms, gave as his opinion that “The cause of death was sclerosis of.the coronary arteries, and it was undoubtedly caused by lead poison-

[166]*166ing.” There was evidence that during the five months of his employment with Cronin, the assured, he was handling lead pipe, and his handkerchiefs and napkins would be colored red from red lead. On the testimony of the specialist it could be found that the lead poisoning, which was a contributing cause of the employee’s death, was progressive, and probably due to the constant assimilation of the lead during the years he had been exposed to it. Without further reference to the evidence in detail, it is apparent that we cannot say that the finding of the board was unwarranted. - Johnson’s Case, 217 Mass. 388. Doherty’s Case, 222 Mass. 98, 100. Walker v. Gage, 223 Mass. 179, 182.

Decree affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Canavan's Case
720 N.E.2d 43 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 1999)
Pell v. New Bedford Gas & Edison Light Co.
90 N.E.2d 555 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1950)
Renfro v. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co.
130 S.W.2d 165 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1939)
Wnukowski's Case
5 N.E.2d 3 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1936)
DeFilippo's Case
188 N.E. 245 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1933)
Wentworth's Case
188 N.E. 237 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1933)
Langford's Case
180 N.E. 228 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1932)
Doyle's Case
269 Mass. 310 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1929)
Sullivan's Case
265 Mass. 497 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1929)
Schaefer & Co. v. Industrial Commission
201 N.W. 396 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1924)
Bergeron's Case
243 Mass. 366 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1923)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
133 N.E. 621, 237 Mass. 164, 1921 Mass. LEXIS 1181, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/odonnells-case-mass-1921.