Tomovich v. Department of Labor & Industries

218 P. 197, 126 Wash. 287, 1923 Wash. LEXIS 1154
CourtWashington Supreme Court
DecidedSeptember 5, 1923
DocketNo. 17821
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 218 P. 197 (Tomovich v. Department of Labor & Industries) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Washington Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Tomovich v. Department of Labor & Industries, 218 P. 197, 126 Wash. 287, 1923 Wash. LEXIS 1154 (Wash. 1923).

Opinions

Tolman, J.

— This case is very similar to that of Kavaja v. Department of Labor and Industries, ante p. 284, 218 Pac. 196. Appellant was engaged in falling and bucking logs for the same employer, and by reason of the turning of a log on which he was standing, he was obliged to jump, and in so doing fell and struck his abdomen on a small log. He immediately complained of pain in the region of the blow, went to the hospital the next day where he was examined, ice packs were applied, and in a few days a case of appendicitis was found to exist, and later the appendix was removed. Other troubles and later operations appeared to have followed therefrom.

[288]*288The department denied appellant’s claim for compensation on the ground that his disability was caused by disease, and not by injuries, and an appeal to the superior court followed. That tribunal, at the close of appellant’s case, dismissed the appeal, and affirmed the order of the department. An appeal to this court followed.

It seems to be admitted that appellant actually had appendicitis, but it is contended in his behalf that the disease was induced by, or followed as a result of, the injuries. As in the Kavaja case, there was testimony as to the possibility that appendicitis might so develop, or that the injuries might have contributed thereto; but the evidence goes no further, and as we there said, in effect, we cannot hold that a mere possibility can prevail over the positively stated,-contrary opinions of expert medical witnesses in such a matter so as to meet the burden of proof which the statute casts upon the appellant.

The judgment appealed from, therefore, must be and is hereby affirmed.

Main, C. J., Fullerton, and Parker, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Seattle-Tacoma Shipbuilding Co. v. Department of Labor & Industries
173 P.2d 786 (Washington Supreme Court, 1946)
Rambeau v. Department of Labor & Industries
163 P.2d 133 (Washington Supreme Court, 1945)
Radich v. Department of Labor & Industries
115 P.2d 1022 (Washington Supreme Court, 1941)
Cole v. Department of Labor & Industries
93 P.2d 413 (Washington Supreme Court, 1939)
Cooper v. Department of Labor & Industries
80 P.2d 830 (Washington Supreme Court, 1938)
Frich v. Department of Labor & Industries
13 P.2d 67 (Washington Supreme Court, 1932)
Boyer v. Department of Labor & Industries
295 P. 737 (Washington Supreme Court, 1931)
Clark v. Department of Labor & Industries
230 P. 133 (Washington Supreme Court, 1924)
Kavaja v. Department of Labor & Industries
218 P. 196 (Washington Supreme Court, 1923)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
218 P. 197, 126 Wash. 287, 1923 Wash. LEXIS 1154, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tomovich-v-department-of-labor-industries-wash-1923.