Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Petrillo v. Borough of Leonia

Decided: November 16, 1959.

ELVIRA DI PETRILLO, WIDOW OF CARLO DI PETRILLO, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT,
v.
BOROUGH OF LEONIA, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT



Goldmann, Conford and Freund. The opinion of the court was delivered by Conford, J.A.D.

Conford

Plaintiff's husband died suddenly while at work as a garbage collector for the defendant municipality December 9, 1957, at the age of 55. She sought workmen's compensation on the theory that the decedent had sustained a work-connected heart attack. Recovery was denied in the Workmen's Compensation Division but allowed on appeal by the Bergen County Court.

This case is typical of the inherent difficulties attendant upon determination of such a case because of the competing medical theories as to the likelihood of causal connection between physical effort or stress and coronary thrombosis or insufficiency, see Aromando v. Rubin Bros. Drug Sales Co. , 47 N.J. Super. 286 (App. Div. 1957), certification denied 26 N.J. 244 (1958); McClain v. City of Woodbury Bd. of Education , 30 N.J. 567 (1959); and because of the presumption that injury from heart disease is ordinarily the result of natural physiological causes, Yeomans v. Jersey City , 27 N.J. 496, 509 (1958); Ciuba v. Irvington Varnish & Insulator Co. , 27 N.J. 127, 138 (1958).

Since the Ciuba case, supra , it is no longer an essential prerequisite of recovery in a heart case that there be shown a history of unusual strain or exertion attendant upon the attack; yet, in seeking the existence of the presently controlling criterion of actual causal or contributive relation between the work and the attack, it remains of some probative significance whether the workman was at the time doing something to which he was not accustomed or which involved a greater strain or burden than that to which he was

accustomed. Loew v. Borough of Union Beach , 56 N.J. Super. 93, 106 (App. Div. 1959); certification denied 31 N.J. 75 (1959); cf. Jacobs v. Kaplan , 56 N.J. Super. 157 (App. Div. 1959).

It is evident that a close factual case like that before us cannot be resolved by a simple rule of thumb. In the final analysis, we must determine whether the plaintiff has carried her burden of proof of establishing the hypothesis of causal connection or contribution between work and heart-accident by evidence of such weight as to engender "the feeling of probability" as to such relationship, rather than that of mere possibility. Ciuba v. Irvington Varnish & Insulator Co., supra (27 N.J. , at p. 140). In the present case, after a careful review of all the evidence, which we shall not here recount in full detail, we find that feeling engendered in our minds.

This decedent for ten years had a history of diabetes, which the medical experts on both sides agree predisposes toward arteriosclerosis, a natural forerunner of coronary artery disease. During the year preceding his death he was ill and out of work for extended periods of time, suffering from such ailments as bronchitis, sinusitis and asthma, as well as the diabetes. His work included, at different times, general road maintenance as well as garbage disposal. The latter work was considered more difficult, but the decedent preferred it because he generally could finish earlier, anywhere from 1:00 P.M. to 2:30 P.M., and could share in Christmas gifts from householders. However, during the several months preceding the fatal day his assignments to garbage removal were considerably less frequent than to the road detail. After being out, ill, from June 18 to July 31, 1957, he worked on roads August 1 to September 30; on garbage from October 1 to October 5 (to replace an absentee); on roads from October 7 to November 9; on garbage from November 11 to November 21; and on roads from November 22 to December 5. On Friday, December 6, and Saturday, December 7, he worked on garbage. On

Sunday, December 8, he was off, and Monday, December 9, was the day of death.

Decedent's work-day commenced on December 9 at 7:30 A.M. He worked the garbage detail with two other men on the crew all day until 4:00 P.M., when he suddenly dropped dead while going to the back of a house to fill his garbage bucket. There had been a lunch period of 30 to 45 minutes. The work consisted of walking from the street, where the truck was standing, to the back of the houses, filling a canvas bucket holding 20 to 30 pounds of garbage from the householders' garbage receptacles, carrying the bucket out to the street, and emptying it into the truck. Monday was an abnormally heavy garbage day because of the intervening Sunday, and the men still had an hour or so to work before finishing the route when decedent was stricken. There is evidence that the decedent was conscientious and a steady worker.

At about 11:00 A.M. that day decedent complained of a "hurting in his chest." However, he later ate a substantial lunch and said he felt fine. He did not again complain of pain before he was found lying dead on a driveway, his empty bucket nearby.

We are not going to review the testimony of the opposing medical experts in detail. There was no autopsy. Nor did the decedent's treating physician testify. Suffice it to say that Dr. Eisenstein, a specialist in internal medicine, gave it as his opinion on the basis of a hypothetical question that the decedent died of acute myocardial infarction and that the nature of the work and the death were causally related. He ascribed his conclusion to four factors: (a) diabetes of a 55-year-old man, indicating coronary artery disease and infarction; (b) chest pain earlier on the day of the attack; (c) the heavy nature of the work; and (d) the suddenness of the onset of death. Dr. Kaufman, also testifying ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.